Brian Darnell Jurbrar Burns v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 28, 2017
• Docket: 49A02-1701-CR-4
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Jun 28 2017, 6:31 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the CLERK Indiana Supreme Court purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Court of Appeals and Tax Court collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General

Matthew B. MacKenzie Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Brian Darnell Jurbrar Burns, June 28, 2017

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1701-CR-4 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court. The Honorable David M. Hooper, State of Indiana, Magistrate. Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Case No. 49G12-1604-CM-14332

Shepard, Senior Judge

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1701-CR-4 | June 28, 2017 Page 1 of 3 1 [1] Brian Burns appeals his conviction for theft, a Class A misdemeanor, claiming

there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. We affirm.

[2] The State’s charge against Burns alleged he stole a watch from a jewelry store

on April 26, 2016. Burns requested trial by jury, a jury found Burns guilty as

charged, and the court imposed a sentence.

[3] To obtain a conviction of theft as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was

required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Burns (1) knowingly or

intentionally (2) exerted unauthorized control (3) over the property of another

person (4) with the intent to deprive the owner of any part of the use or value of

the property. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a). We will affirm a conviction unless no

rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt. Hampton v. State, 873 N.E.2d 1074 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

[4] Burns argues the State did not prove he was the person who stole the watch. At

trial, four eyewitnesses identified Burns as the person in a green trench coat

who stole a watch and fled into a nearby mall prior to arrest. Cassandra Smith

worked in the jewelry store and noticed Burns standing by a watch display case.

When she removed a Bulova watch from the case to show him, Burns grabbed

the watch and ran from the store. Smith informed her manager, Keith, who ran

after Burns through the parking lot, toward a mall.

1 Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a) (2014).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1701-CR-4 | June 28, 2017 Page 2 of 3 [5] Sarah Koerting was sitting outside near a mall entrance and saw Burns being

chased by another man in the parking lot. Koerting recognized Burns because

she had seen him in the area before. He was holding a watch or jewelry. The

man chasing Burns shouted at Koerting to call 911. Koerting called 911 as the

two men entered the mall. Several police officers were dispatched to the mall,

including Officer Jeff Krider.

[6] Meanwhile, Aimee Martinie was working at a clothing store in the mall when

Burns ran into the store, entered a dressing room, and closed the door. Store

employees knocked on the door to see if he needed help, and Burns came out a

few minutes later. At that point, Officer Krider and others entered the store and

arrested Burns. The officers searched him and discovered a watch in his coat

pocket. Krider gave the watch to Keith. Keith returned to the jewelry store

with the watch, forty-five minutes after Burns took it and ran.

[7] Burns points out inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies, but the

inconsistencies were a matter for the jury to resolve. The eyewitness

identifications are more than sufficient to sustain the judgment. See Williams v.

State, 512 N.E.2d 1087 (Ind. 1987) (evidence sufficient to support conviction for

theft; factual inconsistencies were matter for jury).

[8] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[9] Affirmed.

Kirsch, Mathias, JJ., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1701-CR-4 | June 28, 2017 Page 3 of 3