Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DARREN BEDWELL Marion County Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana KARL SCHARNBERG Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Oct 25 2011, 9:34 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

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

CLERK

No. 49A02-1104-CR-291

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Deborah J. Shook, Master Commissioner Cause No. 49F08-1012-CM-90532

October 25, 2011

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

NAJAM, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Walter Lyles appeals his conviction for criminal trespass, as a Class A misdemeanor, following a bench trial. He presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. We reverse. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On December 3, 2010, Lyles went to a Chase bank branch in Indianapolis and requested a printout of the activity related to an account he had with the bank. Lyles had a positive balance in his account that day, but he was concerned that the balance was inaccurate. A Chase employee informed Lyles that she could provide him with a printed statement for the account, but that there would be a $6.00 charge for that statement. Lyles became upset, insisting that he be provided a "printout" of the account activity free of charge. A Chase employee ultimately asked Lyles to leave the premises because of his disruptive behavior, but Lyles refused to leave. A Chase employee called the police, and an officer with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department arrested Lyles. The State charged Lyles with criminal trespass. The trial court found him guilty and entered judgment and sentence accordingly. Lyles filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied. This appeal ensued. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Lyles contends that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is challenged, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we affirm
2

if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 905-06 (Ind. 2005). It is the job of the fact-finder to determine whether the evidence in a particular case sufficiently proves each element of an offense, and we consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial courts ruling. Id. at 906. To prove criminal trespass, as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was required to show that Lyles knowingly or intentionally refused to leave the property of Chase bank after having been asked to leave by an agent of Chase. See Ind. Code

Download Walter Lyles v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law