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
Oct 02 2012, 9:26 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: STANLEY L. CAMPBELL Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana KATHERINE MODESSIT COOPER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
TRACY A. LAWRENCE, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 02A03-1203-CR-125

APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Wendy W. Davis, Judge Cause No. 02D05-1108-FD-1132

October 2, 2012 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary Tracy A. Lawrence was convicted of Class D felony theft. He now appeals, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Finding that the evidence is sufficient to prove that Lawrence committed theft, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History The facts most favorable to the verdict are that in July 2011, employees of Acme Bar & Grill in Allen County, Indiana, noticed that several boxes of high-quality meat products were missing from the restaurant's outdoor meat cooler. Video surveillance from the night before showed a man crossing Acme's parking lot to the area where the cooler was located and then carrying boxes away from the cooler. After discovering that meat was missing, the employees placed a lock on the cooler. The following morning, employees discovered the cooler's lock had been cut and additional meat products taken. Acme installed an alarm system and a new lock because of the thefts. At approximately 1:20 a.m. on July 19, 2011, police received notification that the cooler's alarm system had been triggered. The new lock had been cut and meat products again taken. Surveillance video showed a man carrying a bolt cutter across the parking lot to the cooler and then carrying boxes away from the cooler. Acme's loss in meat products was estimated between $2500 and $3000. Fort Wayne Police Detective Scott Morales interviewed Lawrence in connection with the thefts. Detective Morales advised Lawrence of his rights, and Lawrence signed a written waiver. Detective Morales told Lawrence that he was a suspect because he resembled the man in the surveillance video who was seen carrying boxes of meat away 2

from Acme's cooler. Although Lawrence initially denied involvement, he then told Detective Morales that two men he met at a gas station had hired him to perform several jobs, including taking boxes of meat that were sitting outside Acme's meat cooler. The men instructed Lawrence to take the meat and deliver it to an address a block away from Acme. Lawrence said he had followed the men's instructions and had been paid for delivering the meat. Lawrence then changed his story, saying that he had simply When Detective Morales

delivered an empty box found on a nearby street corner.

reminded Lawrence about the surveillance video, Lawrence gave Detective Morales the name and address of one of the men he claimed hired him. The State charged Lawrence with Class D felony theft, and a jury found Lawrence guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Lawrence to three years in the Department of Correction. Lawrence now appeals. Discussion and Decision Lawrence contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for Class D felony theft. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. Id. When confronted with conflicting evidence, we consider it most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Id. We affirm the conviction unless "no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (quotation omitted). It is not necessary that the evidence

3

overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Id. at 147.

The evidence is

sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. Class D felony theft occurs when a person "knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use." Ind. Code

Download 10021201nhv.pdf

Indiana Law