Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

FILED
Jun 18 2008, 9:23 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: HILARY BOWE RICKS Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana JOSEPH ROBERT DELAMATER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
BRIAN BURKE, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A02-0711-CR-954

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Amy Barbar, Magistrate Cause No. 49G22-0706-FC-105309

June 18, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAILEY, Judge

Case Summary Brian Burke appeals his conviction of Auto Theft. We reverse. Issue While Burke raises multiple issues on appeal, we address only the dispositive issue: whether there was sufficient evidence to find him guilty of Auto Theft. Facts and Procedural History Timothy Green fell asleep on his couch and awoke to find his keys and automobile missing. Five days later, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department ("IMPD") Officer Tanya Eastwood observed Burke driving Green's car and arrested him. The State charged Burke with Auto Theft. The trial court found him guilty. Burke now appeals. Discussion and Decision Burke asserts that there was not sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Our standard of review is well-established. In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we will affirm the conviction unless, considering only the evidence and all reasonable inferences favorable to the judgment, and neither reweighing the evidence nor judging the credibility of the witnesses, we conclude that no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Bethel v. State, 730 N.E.2d 1242, 1243 (Ind. 2000) (citations omitted). For the crime of Auto Theft, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant "knowingly or intentionally exert[ed] unauthorized control over the motor vehicle of another person, with intent to deprive the owner of the vehicle's value or use." Ind. Code

Download Brian Burke v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law