Lawrence Green v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 05 2017, 6:10 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael R. Fisher Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lawrence Green, September 5, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1703-CR-505
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey L. Marchal,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G06-1511-F5-40630
Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-505 | September 5, 2017 Page 1 of 9
[1] In this appeal, Lawrence Green (“Green”) contends that the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction for his Level 5 felony conviction for
leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] At approximately 3:30 a.m. on November 8, 2015, twenty-three-year-old Roy J.
Shelton (“Shelton”) was walking on the north side of East Sumner Avenue near
South Oakland Avenue in Indianapolis. At 5:30 a.m., two 911 calls reported a
body in the roadway of East Sumner Avenue east of the South Oakland Avenue
intersection. One of the 911 callers reported hearing a loud noise outside her
home a couple hours before she saw the body in the road. Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) officers were dispatched to the
scene and discovered Shelton’s body on the north side of East Sumner Avenue
approximately 150 feet east of the intersection with Oakland Avenue. Shelton
had suffered massive blunt force trauma injuries that resulted in his death. His
autopsy revealed that his injuries were consistent with those sustained from
contact with a motor vehicle.
[4] The responding officers also found small vehicle parts and glass near Shelton’s
body that matched a vehicle headlight assembly recovered a couple blocks
away. From the parts and headlight assembly, IMPD detectives determined the
vehicle involved in the accident was a green Ford Explorer model from 1991 to
1993.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-505 | September 5, 2017 Page 2 of 9
[5] Notice of the hit-and-run investigation and the suspected vehicle’s description
were publicized to the media that day. The day after the hit-and-run, November
9, 2015, the Beech Grove Police Department received an anonymous tip about
a Ford Explorer that matched the police description parked at an address in
Beech Grove, Indiana. IMPD detectives arrived at the scene and observed that
the vehicle was missing one headlight and had damage to its right wheel well.
They matched the vehicle parts and headlight assembly recovered on East
Sumner Avenue to the Ford Explorer. A registration check revealed the vehicle
belonged to Green. Also, during a search warrant executed later that day,
marijuana was discovered in the console and the driver’s side door. Additional
testing revealed that blood found on the vehicle contained Shelton’s DNA.
[6] Green heard of the fatal hit-and-run on the news and surrendered himself to law
enforcement on November 12, 2015. He was charged with Level 5 felony
leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death and Class A misdemeanor
possession of marijuana.
[7] A bench trial was conducted on December 14, 2016. An officer who responded
to the scene of the accident testified that it appeared that Shelton had been
struck from behind. And the State admitted several photographs of the accident
scene and medical reports establishing the extent of Shelton’s injuries.
[8] Green testified on his own behalf. He claimed that while driving at a rate of
approximately twenty-five miles per hour, he took his eyes away from the road
to light a cigarette and felt the impact of his vehicle hitting something. Tr. p. 61.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-505 | September 5, 2017 Page 3 of 9
He stated that he brought his vehicle to a stop one half block after the accident,
exited, and inspected the front of the vehicle for damage. He then walked a few
feet past his vehicle in the direction of the accident. In the dark, he did not see
what he hit, and he returned to his vehicle and drove home. Green testified that
he was not aware he had hit a person until he saw the news report the next day.
Tr. pp. 70–71. Green admitted to possessing the marijuana found in his vehicle.
[9] After reviewing the evidence in a bench trial, the trial court concluded that “this
doesn’t look like an injury sustained at a low speed accident of twenty-five
miles an hour. This young man had his spine severed. He had his ankle broken.
He had a hole in his shoulder, among other things. He died because of multiple
blunt force injuries.” Tr. pp. 86–87. The trial court concluded that Green should
have known that the accident could have involved injury to another person and
he should have called 911. Tr. p. 90.
[10] The trial court found Green guilty of both charges. On February 9, 2017,
Green’s sentencing hearing was held. The court considered the severe nature of
the injuries as an aggravating factor and Green’s remorse as a mitigating factor.
Green was sentenced to 180 days in the county jail for the Class A
misdemeanor conviction to be served concurrently with the six-year sentence in
the Department of Correction for the Level 5 felony conviction. Three years of
the six-year sentence for the latter conviction were suspended to probation.
Green now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-505 | September 5, 2017 Page 4 of 9
Discussion and Decision
[11] When we review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we
must examine only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom
that support the conviction. Lock v. State, 971 N.E.2d 71, 74 (Ind. 2012). We
will neither assess witness credibility nor reweigh the evidence. Id. We will
affirm a conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could have found the
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence does
not have to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, so long as an
inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence to support the
conviction. Id.[12] On the date Green was charged,1 Indiana Code section 9-26-1-1.1 provided in
pertinent part:
(a) The operator of a motor vehicle involved in an accident shall
do the following:
(1) Immediately stop the operator’s motor vehicle:
(A) at the scene of the accident; or
(B) as close to the accident as possible in a manner that
does not obstruct traffic more than is necessary.
(2) Remain at the scene of the accident until the operator does
the following:
1
Indiana Code section 9-26-1-1.1 was amended by Public Law 63-2016 in 2016 and Public Law 123-2017 in
2017.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-505 | September 5, 2017 Page 5 of 9
(A) Gives the operator's name and address and the
registration number of the motor vehicle the operator was
driving to any person involved in the accident.
(B) Exhibits the operator’s driver’s license to any person
involved in the accident or occupant of or any person
attending to any vehicle involved in the accident.
(3) If the accident results in the injury or death of another
person, the operator shall, in addition to the requirements of
subdivisions (1) and (2):
(A) provide reasonable assistance to each person injured
in or entrapped by the accident, as directed by a law
enforcement officer, medical personnel, or a 911
telephone operator; and
(B) as soon as possible after the accident, immediately
give notice of the accident, or ensure that another person
gives notice of the accident, by the quickest means of
communication to one (1) of the following:
(i) The local police department, if the accident occurs
within a municipality.
(ii) The office of the county sheriff or the nearest state
police post, if the accident occurs outside a
municipality.
(iii) A 911 telephone operator.
***
(b) An operator of a motor vehicle who knowingly or
intentionally fails to comply with subsection (a) commits leaving
the scene of an accident, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the
offense is:
***
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-505 | September 5, 2017 Page 6 of 9
(3) a Level 5 felony if the accident results in the death of
another person . . .
“The purpose of the statute is to provide prompt aid for persons who are injured
or whose property is damaged and to sufficiently establish the identity of the
parties so that they and police authorities may know with whom to deal in
matters growing out of the accident.” Hudson v. State, 20 N.E.3d 900, 904 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2014) (citations omitted).
[13] The State alleged that Green, “being the driver of a vehicle that was involved in
an accident, did knowingly or intentionally fail to stop the vehicle at the scene
of said accident, or as close as possible thereto, and the said accident did result
in the death of Roy Shelton[.]” Appellant’s App. p. 17. Green does not dispute
that he was involved in the accident. He argues only that the State failed to
prove that he “had the requisite knowledge or intent to support a conviction for
leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death.” Appellant’s Br. at 9.
A driver’s knowledge of the fact that an accident with injury has
occurred is a necessary element of the proof in a prosecution for
failure to stop. Yet a driver need not have actual knowledge that
an accident has resulted in an injury to be convicted under the
statute. Where conditions were such that the driver should have
known that an accident occurred or should have reasonably
anticipated that the accident resulted in injury to a person, the
requisite knowledge is present. When a driver prosecuted for
failure to stop asserts that he did not know he was involved in an
accident causing injury, that assertion is a defense that goes to the
issue of whether he possessed the requisite mens rea, and the
credibility of that defense is an issue for the factfinder. The trier
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-505 | September 5, 2017 Page 7 of 9
of fact may infer a defendant’s knowledge from circumstantial
evidence.
Hudson, 20 N.E.3d at 904–05 (citations and quotations omitted).
[14] The State presented evidence that Green was traveling at a rate of speed that
caused a significant impact to Shelton, which resulted in severe injuries causing
his death. Shelton’s injuries included a severed spinal cord, fractures to his foot,
right leg, right shoulder, pelvis, and multiple lacerations to the right side of his
body. Green’s vehicle was damaged in the accident, and Shelton’s blood was
discovered on the front passenger side of the car. And Shelton was struck from
behind. Shelton’s body was lying in the roadway outside Estella Mendoza’s
home, and Ms. Mendoza stated that she heard a loud noise outside her home in
the early morning hours. Appellant’s App. p. 52.
[15] This evidence supports the trial court’s judgment that Green should have
reasonably anticipated that the accident resulted in injury to a person. See
Hudson, 20 N.E.3d at 905. The trial court, as the trier of fact, discredited
Green’s claim that he did not know that he hit another person and his own
testimony in support of that defense. And we will not reweigh that evidence on
appeal. See Lock, 971 N.E.2d at 74.
[16] We therefore conclude that Green’s Level 5 felony leaving the scene of an
accident resulting in death is supported by sufficient evidence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-505 | September 5, 2017 Page 8 of 9
[17] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-505 | September 5, 2017 Page 9 of 9