Danny Burton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 14, 2017
• Docket: 49A02-1609-CR-2103
• 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 14 2017, 10:00 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

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Joel M. Schumm Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Ellen H. Meilaender Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Danny Burton, June 14, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1609-CR-2103 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Hugh Patrick Appellee-Plaintiff. Murphy, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G16-1604-F6-14658

Barnes, Judge.

Case Summary

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-2103| June 14, 2017 Page 1 of 7 [1] Danny Burton appeals his conviction for Level 6 felony false reporting. We

affirm.

Issues

[2] The issue before us is whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain Burton’s

conviction for false reporting.

Facts

[3] On April 14, 2016, Burton made two calls to 911 and reported that there were

explosives set to go off at the Julian Center in Indianapolis. Burton’s ex-

girlfriend, S.S. was living at the Julian Center at this time. During the first call,

Burton stated, “there’s an explosive device set to go off in ten minutes at the

Julian Center.” Ex. 3A. Burton told the dispatcher that he intended to harm

S.S., stating that “she is getting ready to die,” and that he intended to “blow

that b**** up today.” Id. Burton refused to give the exact locations of the

explosives, stating “you’ll have to find it.” Id. During the second call, Burton

stated “So ya’ll think I’m bulls******* you right? You got three minutes to

evacuate the Julian Center. The bomb is going to go off. I have three bombs

planted.” Id. Burton also stated that he had a detonator and that he would use

it if the explosives did not go off on their own. Burton also stated that there

were three fifty-five-gallon drums filled with nitrate and diesel fuel that he had

placed himself.

[4] On April 15, 2016, Burton called 911 two more times, again threatening to

blow up the Julian Center. In the first call, Burton stated, “I corrected the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-2103| June 14, 2017 Page 2 of 7 problem last night … I’m going to blow up the Julian Center and everything in

it.” Ex. 4A. Burton claimed there were three fifty-five-gallon drums filled with

nitrate and diesel fuel. When asked where the explosives were located, Burton

stated that the explosives were “sitting outside.” Id. In the second call, Burton

again referenced the three fifty-five-gallon drums and stated that he had some

difficulty with the detonator, but that the bombs were still set to go off in five

minutes. Police were dispatched to the Julian Center on both occasions.

Explosives were not discovered.

[5] On April 20, 2016, Burton was charged with Level 6 felony false reporting,

Level 6 felony intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

During a bench trial on August 8, 2016, Burton was convicted of Level 6 felony

false reporting. On August 22, 2016, the trial court sentenced Burton to 545

days imprisonment. Burton now appeals his conviction.

Analysis

[6] Burton argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for false

reporting for two reasons: (1) “the state offered no evidence that the purported

explosives were placed ‘in’ a building; and (2) the defendant’s emotional state

negated any knowledge that the report was false.” Appellant’s Br. p. 4. When

reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we neither reweigh evidence nor

judge the credibility of witnesses. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 871 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2007). We consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and

any reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Glotzbach v. State, 783 N.E.2d

1221, 1226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). We will affirm a conviction unless we Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-2103| June 14, 2017 Page 3 of 7 conclude that no reasonable fact-finder would find the elements of the crime

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Stokes v. State, 922 N.E.2d 758, 763 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2010) trans. denied. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence

overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id.

A. Sufficiency of Evidence for Falsely Reporting Explosives “in” a Building.

[7] Burton contends that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for

false reporting because “[he] never claimed to have placed explosives “in” the

Julian Center. Rather, when asked during the third call about their placement,

he explicitly stated, ‘they are sitting outside.’” Appellant’s Br. p. 7. Indiana

Code Section 35-44.1-2-3(c) provides in part that “a person who reports, by

telephone, telegraph, mail, or other written or oral communication, that: (1) the

person or another person has placed or intends to place an explosive, a

destructive device, or other destructive substance in a building or transportation

facility … knowing the report to be false, commits false reporting, a Level 6

felony.”

[8] The evidence most favorable to the judgment shows that Burton made four 911

calls between April 14, 2016, and April 15, 2016. During each of the phone

calls, Burton was asked to provide the location of the explosives he claimed to

have placed at the Julian Center. Burton refused to give the exact location, but

he gave the address of the Julian Center during every call. Burton also stated

that he intended to kill S.S., who at the time was living at the Julian Center.

Burton also demanded that the Julian Center be evacuated. On April 15, 2016,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-2103| June 14, 2017 Page 4 of 7 Burton stated that he was “going to blow up the Julian Center and everything in

it.” Ex. 4A.

[9] Burton argues that the language of the statute specifies that a person must

report explosives “in” a building in order to commit false reporting. Burton’s

argument relies heavily on only one of the statements made during the several

calls placed over the two-day period. Thus, his argument fails to acknowledge

that he not only expressly named the Julian Center on all four occasions, but

that he also provided the address and stated that he wanted to blow up

everything inside it. Burton was only charged with one count of false reporting.

Thus, despite the statement made during the third phone call that the explosives

were sitting outside, any reasonable fact-finder could infer that Burton

committed false reporting. Whether Burton intended to claim that he placed

the explosives “in,” “at,” or “outside” the Julian Center, the intent was the

same. Burton alleged that he intended to blow up S.S., who he knew was living

in the Julian Center at the time. During the other three phone calls, Burton

failed to provide the exact location for the alleged bombs that he placed, and

therefore police and staff had to search the building and take any other

necessary precautions, on both occasions, to ensure the residents’ safety.

B. Sufficiency of Evidence for Knowing Report to be False

[10] Burton argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction

because “the state also failed to prove that Burton knew his report of a bomb to

be false.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8. When reviewing knowledge or intent, absent an

admission by the defendant, the trier of fact must resort to the reasonable

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-2103| June 14, 2017 Page 5 of 7 inferences from both direct and circumstantial evidence to determine whether

the defendant has the requisite knowledge or intent to commit the offense in

question. Stokes, 922 N.E.2d at 764. Knowledge or 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.

[11] Burton contends that, because he “became emotional when discussing the

alleged bombs and apologized for setting them,” that he did not know the

report was false. Appellant’s Br. p. 9. The evidence shows otherwise. Burton

made several 911 calls over the course of a two-day period, and during each

call, he stated that he had placed three fifty-five-gallon drums at the Julian

Center. Burton also stated that he had filled each of the drums with nitrate and

diesel fuel and that he had a detonator to use if the explosives did not ignite on

their own. When the alleged explosives failed to detonate on April 14, 2016,

Burton again called 911 alleging that he had fixed the problem and that bombs

would explode. On both occasions, Julian Center staff and police officers

searched the building and did not find any explosives inside or outside of the

Julian Center. The fact that Burton became emotional after he made the phone

calls has no bearing on whether he knowingly made false threats during the

phone calls. Based on Burton’s conduct during the 911 calls, it was reasonable

for the trial court to infer that Burton knowingly made false reports.

Conclusion

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-2103| June 14, 2017 Page 6 of 7 [12] There was sufficient evidence to support Burton’s conviction for Level 6 felony

false reporting. We affirm the decision of trial court.

[13] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-2103| June 14, 2017 Page 7 of 7