Breasia Sawyer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec,)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 3, 2017
• Docket: 49A02-1608-CR-1832
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 03 2017, 9:56 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Patricia Caress McMath Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana Jodi Kathryn Stein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Breasia Sawyer, February 3, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1608-CR-1832 v. Appeal from the Marion County Superior Court State of Indiana, The Hon. Linda Brown, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. The Hon. Allan Reid, Commissioner Trial Court Cause No. 49G10-1408-CM-40997

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1832 | February 3, 2017 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] On August 18, 2014, Appellant-Defendant Breasia Sawyer was shopping at

Walmart with her sister when a store employee observed her conceal towels in

her bag. The store employee also observed her move beyond the points of

purchase with sheets in her arms without paying. After she was intercepted by

the employee, Sawyer voluntarily gave a written statement in which she

admitted to walking out without paying for the items. Appellee-Plaintiff the

State of Indiana (the “State”) charged Sawyer with one count of Class A

misdemeanor theft on August 28, 2014.

[2] On appeal, Sawyer challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Specifically,

Sawyer raises the following restated issue: whether the evidence was sufficient

to prove that she intended to deprive Walmart of the value of the towels and

sheets that she carried through the exit doors without paying for them. Because

there was sufficient evidence such that reasonable minds could reach the

conclusion that Sawyer intended to commit theft, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On August 18, 2014, Sawyer was shopping in the Walmart on East Washington

Street in Marion County with her younger sister. Sawyer was familiar with this

particular Walmart because she use to work at the store. While the two women

were shopping, Marcus Shields, the store’s Asset Protection Associate, saw

Sawyer pick up some towels and put them in her purse. Shields also observed

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1832 | February 3, 2017 Page 2 of 5 Sawyer picking up two sets of sheets before she walked past all points of

purchase and into the vestibule.1

[4] At that point, Sawyer was confronted by Shields. Sawyer was cooperative with

Shields and went with him to his office to fill out a statement form. On the

form, Sawyer wrote “I walked out of Walmart with a pack of towels [and] two

sheet sets.” Tr. p. 10; State’s Ex. 2. An officer from the Indianapolis Police

Department was subsequently dispatched to the store where the officer issued a

summons for theft.

[5] The State charged Sawyer with Class A misdemeanor theft on August 28, 2014.

After Sawyer failed to appear for two bench trials, she proceeded to a bench

trial on July 18, 2016. During her testimony, Sawyer admitted that she had

passed all points of purchase with the towels and sheets. Sawyer also testified

that she was only going to the vestibule to retrieve a cart and that Walmart

allows its customers to place unpaid items in their purses or bags. The trial

court found Sawyer guilty as charged and sentenced her to 365 days, with 349

suspended and twenty hours of community service per month while she is on

probation. This appeal follows.

Discussion and Decision

1 The vestibule is the area between two sets of doors that separate the store entrance and the parking lot.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1832 | February 3, 2017 Page 3 of 5 [6] On appeal, Sawyer argues that there was insufficient evidence to support her

conviction for Class A misdemeanor theft because there is no evidence that

Sawyer intended to deprive Walmart of the value or use of the merchandise

when she went through the exit to the vestibule without paying for the sheets or

towels. Our standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence claims is

well-settled. Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. 2000).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the verdict. We do not assess witness credibility, nor do we reweigh the evidence to determine if it was sufficient to support a conviction. Under our appellate system, those roles are reserved for the finder of fact. Instead, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court ruling and affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This evidence need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it is sufficient so long as an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.

Lock v. State, 971 N.E.2d 71, 74 (Ind. 2012) (internal citations and quotation

marks omitted). The trier of fact is responsible for resolving conflicts of

testimony, determining the weight of the evidence, and evaluating the

credibility of the witnesses. Jones v. State, 701 N.E.2d 863, 867 (Ind. Ct. App.

1998).

[7] Under Indiana Code section 35-43-4-2, “[a] person who 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, commits theft,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1832 | February 3, 2017 Page 4 of 5 a Class A misdemeanor.” “Intent is a mental function, and without a

confession, it must be determined from a consideration of the conduct and the

natural consequences of the conduct giving rise to the charge that the defendant

committed theft.” Long v. State, 867 N.E.2d 606, 614 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “Accordingly, intent may be

proven by circumstantial evidence, and it may be inferred from a defendant’s

conduct and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically

and reasonably points.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

[8] Sawyer asserted during trial that she took the items with her past the exit doors

in order to retrieve a cart and that Walmart allowed customers to store unpaid

items in their purses or bags. The trial court, however, did not find Sawyer’s

“demeanor, or her testimony very credible.” Tr. p. 26. The trial court also

found that “if [Sawyer] worked at [Walmart] then she certainly . . .

[understood] the rules about passing the last point of purchase. If you are going

to get a cart, you do not carry unpaid merchandise with you out to get a cart.”

Tr. p. 26. Furthermore, the evidence shows that Sawyer wrote a voluntary

statement in which she admitted to walking out of the store with the unpaid

merchandise. Reviewing only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences

that would support the verdict, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to

support the trial court’s conclusion that Sawyer committed theft beyond a

reasonable doubt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Vaidik, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1832 | February 3, 2017 Page 5 of 5