Cynthia Gonzalez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 24, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CR-2046
• 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 Jun 24 2019, 7:18 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Valerie K. Boots Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Daniel Hageman Attorney General of Indiana Marion County Public Defender Agency Samantha M. Sumcad – Appellate Division Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Cynthia Gonzalez, June 24, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-2046 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Peggy R. Hart, Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G10-1802-CM-6257

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Gonzalez appeals her criminal mischief conviction from the Marion Superior

Court. She argues the conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2046 | June 24, 2019 Page 1 of 6 [2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On May 9, 2017, Tyler Walker (“Walker”) was leaving the parking lot of an

Indianapolis Walmart. As Walker was backing out of her parking spot in her

Ford Focus, a small, red Honda approached quickly, and the two cars almost

came into contact. The Honda stopped and waited for Walker to finish backing

out of her parking spot.

[4] However, a male passenger exited the Honda and walked toward Walker’s

vehicle. Walker also observed the passenger and the female driver

communicating. Fearing for her safety, Walker attempted to drive around the

unknown male and the Honda. The passenger got back into the Honda, and

Walker was able to slowly drive away. The two vehicles were close to one

another; however, the driver of the Honda opened her door. Walker heard what

she believes was a key pressed against her car as she drove by and a sound she

describes as “like nails on chalk board.” Tr. p. 35. She then saw the driver of the

Honda close her car door and speed away.

[5] Walker stopped her vehicle again to observe the damage. After seeing the key

mark, Walker got back into her vehicle and began to follow the Honda. She

obtained the license plate information and relayed this to the police, whom she

had called. Police instructed Walker to stop following the Honda, and she did.

[6] Detective Stephen Carroll (“Detective Carroll”) from the Indianapolis

Metropolitan Police Department was assigned to the matter. Police were able to Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2046 | June 24, 2019 Page 2 of 6 obtain BMV records showing the registered owner of the Honda was Cynthia

Gonzalez. The detective had also obtained surveillance video from Walmart,

and while the video showed the incident, it was not possible to identify the

individuals from the video. Three days after the incident, Walker met with

Detective Carroll.

[7] When Walker met with the Detective, she identified Cynthia Gonzalez out of a

photo array line up. Tr. pp. 51–53; Ex. Vol., State’s Exs. 6–8. Walker also gave

a taped statement of the events. While taking this taped statement, the detective

confirmed with Walker that she picked “the right person.” Tr. p. 25. After the

detective had told her she had picked the “right” person, she responded, saying

“good – because I was only about sixty percent sure.” Id. Defense counsel

deposed Walker about year after Walker had identified Gonzalez. During this

deposition, Walker also stated that “a lot of Mexican females, personally to me,

look identical.” Tr. p. 27.

[8] However, at trial, Walker was much more certain that she had identified the

right person, saying,

Now that I have seen her in person, I know that was her. In the pictures that I circled, she wasn’t wearing glasses. So it was a little bit harder to identify. Uh, but now that I’ve seen her in person, yes I can fully identify her; and that was her who damaged my car.

Tr. p. 30. Detective Carroll had no recollection of a confidence issue when

Walker identified Gonzalez out of the photo array. A bench trial was held on

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2046 | June 24, 2019 Page 3 of 6 July 30, 2018, and at the conclusion of the bench trial, Gonzalez was convicted

of criminal mischief as a Class B Misdemeanor. Gonzalez now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] When reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not

reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Bond v. State, 925

N.E.2d 773, 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. Instead, we consider only

the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences drawn

therefrom, and we will affirm if the evidence and those inferences constitute

substantial evidence of probative value to support the verdict. Id. Reversal is

appropriate only when a reasonable trier or fact would not be able to form

inferences as to each material element of the offense. Id.

[10] Here, the conviction is supported by substantial evidence. Walker was able to

identify Gonzalez as the defendant out of a photo array of six individuals with

similar features. While she had some doubt at the time she identified Gonzalez,

Walker testified she was confident she had the correct individual once she was

able to see Gonzalez in person at court. The State introduced evidence of the

scratch on the car as well as an estimate for repair. While this estimate also

contained costs of repair work that was not claimed to be as a result of the acts

of the Defendant, a reasonable trier can deduce the cost of repair for the scratch

on the car. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicle (“BMV”) records showed that the

defendant was the registered owner of the Honda being driven that day.

Gonzalez raises the question of whether she was actually the individual driving

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2046 | June 24, 2019 Page 4 of 6 her car that day; however, given the positive identification and that Gonzalez is

the registered owner of the vehicle being driven in the Walmart parking lot

during the events in question, we conclude that there was substantial evidence

of probative value to support the conviction.

[11] Gonzalez also argues that Walker’s identification of her in the photo array is

incredibly dubious. The incredible dubiosity standard is a difficult standard to

meet and requires great ambiguity and inconsistency in the evidence. Moore v.

State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 756 (Ind. 2015). It applies only in limited circumstances.

Id. at 754. “For the incredible dubiosity rule to apply, the evidence presented

must be so unbelievable, incredible, or improbable that no reasonable person

could ever reach a guilty verdict based upon that evidence alone.” Id. at 751.

If a sole witness presents inherently improbable testimony and there is a complete lack of circumstantial evidence, a defendant’s conviction may be reversed. This is appropriate only where the court has confronted inherently improbable testimony or coerced, equivocal, wholly uncorroborated testimony of incredible dubiosity. Application of this rule is rare and the standard to be applied is whether the testimony is so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no reasonable person could believe it.

Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201, 1208 (Ind. 2007) (quoting Love v. State, 761

N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2002)).

[12] Although Walker had some admitted doubt about her identification of

Gonzalez in the photo array of individuals with similar features, she was

positive she had identified the correct person when she was able to see her in

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2046 | June 24, 2019 Page 5 of 6 person at the bench trial. Given the evidence presented at the bench trial, we do

not conclude that Walker’s positive identification of Gonzalez was inherently

improbable.

Conclusion [13] We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented in support of Gonzalez’s

criminal mischief conviction. We also conclude that Walker’s identification of

Gonzalez from a photo array was not incredibly dubious.

[14] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2046 | June 24, 2019 Page 6 of 6