MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 12 2018, 7:11 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE John T. Wilson Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Ellen H. Meilaender Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of: October 12, 2018
V.R. Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-JV-693 Appellant, Appeal from the Madison Circuit v. Court The Honorable G. George Pancol, State of Indiana, Judge The Honorable Carl VanDorn, Appellee. Senior Judge Trial Court Cause No. 48C02-1709-JD-280
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-693 | October 12, 2018 Page 1 of 7 [1] V.R. appeals his adjudication as a delinquent for committing acts that would
constitute fraud as a level 6 felony if committed by an adult. V.R. raises one
issue which we restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his
adjudication as a delinquent. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In July 2017, V.R., J.G., K.C., and S.B. were walking in a park and found
credit cards which belonged to Philip Lavelle. V.R. and the other individuals
went to Walmart and Meijer, and Lavelle’s credit cards were used to purchase
merchandise. K.C. gave V.R. headphones. J.G. received a phone and
headphones. At around 8:00 a.m. on July 17, 2017, Lavelle received a call
from someone who had found his wallet. Lavelle’s wallet did not have the
cards in it and he discovered that his vehicle “had been rummaged through.”
Transcript Volume I at 9.
[3] On September 5, 2017, the State filed a petition alleging that V.R. committed
acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute theft and fraud as level 6
felonies. The court held a factfinding hearing at which it heard testimony from
Lavelle, J.G., V.R., and K.C. Lavelle testified that two of his credit cards were
missing and that he became aware that the cards were used to complete
transactions at Walmart and Meijer which he did not authorize. He testified
that a total of $2,490.06 was charged to one of the cards and approximately
$700 was charged to the other card.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-693 | October 12, 2018 Page 2 of 7 [4] When asked “you were all present at Walmart when the charges were made,”
J.G. testified “[e]verybody was doing they own little thing. I am [J.G.]. I can
only tell you about [J.G.]” and “[s]omebody was playing on the bikes. So they
be doing what they feel. Just do what you do. I am not nobody’s keeper but
[J.G.’s].” Id. at 14. The prosecutor asked “but you used those cards? Those
cards were used at Walmart while you were there?” Id. at 16. J.G. replied
“[y]eah.” Id. When asked “[a]nd you got items related to those transactions,”
J.G. again replied “[y]eah.” Id.
[5] V.R. testified “I didn’t see no purchases made” and, when asked why, answered
“actually, we was all spread around the store.” Id. at 21. V.R. indicated that he
did not know anything about the charges on the credit cards and that he first
learned there were cards being used for purchases when he received a call from
a detective. When asked “[n]ow, on the items that were purchased, did any of
those end up in your possession,” V.R. replied “I did have an item” and “it was
two headphones, little headphones.” Id. at 22. When asked “who had you get
those,” V.R. answered “[K.C.],” and when asked “[h]e gave them to you,” V.R.
replied “Uh huh.” Id. at 23. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked V.R.
about the headphones he received, and V.R. stated “I actually don’t even think
they was from the store.” Id. at 25.
[6] When asked “[d]o you remember telling . . . the police officer, that you all went
to Walmart and that you had credit cards that didn’t belong to anyone in the
group,” K.C. testified “[y]es. They belonged to me. I swiped them. Yes.” Id.
at 29. When asked “so the persons that were there when the items were taken,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-693 | October 12, 2018 Page 3 of 7 okay, were bought, would be the persons that you were referring to that knew
that the cards didn’t belong to anyone in the group. Would that be fair to say,”
K.C. answered “[s]ure.” Id.
[7] The court found that V.R. committed acts which, if committed by an adult,
constituted fraud as a level 6 felony and found the allegation that he committed
acts of theft to be not true. The court placed V.R. on supervised probation and
scheduled a review hearing.
Discussion
[8] The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain V.R.’s adjudication as a
delinquent. When the State seeks to have a juvenile adjudicated as a delinquent
for committing an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, the State
must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. J.L. v. State,
5 N.E.3d 431, 442 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). In reviewing a juvenile adjudication,
this court will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting
the judgment and will neither reweigh evidence nor judge the credibility of the
witnesses. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a
reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the juvenile was guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt, we will affirm the adjudication. Id.
[9] V.R. claims the evidence is insufficient to sustain the delinquency adjudication.
He argues the evidence did not show he had a credit card in his possession or
used a credit card to purchase any items, that J.G. knew V.R. was in the store
when the credit cards were used but did not know what V.R. was doing at the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-693 | October 12, 2018 Page 4 of 7 time, and that K.C. testified that he was the person who stole the cards. V.R.
points to his testimony that he did not think the headphones he received from
K.C. were from the stores. V.R. also argues that there is no evidence that he
actively participated in the crime, that he knew the crime was going to happen
or there was any agreement among the group to use the cards before the
commission of the crime, that his group of friends left together, or that the
headphones he received from K.C. were purchased with the stolen credit cards.
[10] The State responds that it was not required to prove that V.R. personally
possessed Lavelle’s credit cards or used them to make purchases and that the
evidence was sufficient to show V.R. acted as an accomplice. It argues V.R.
was present when the cards were found, knew the cards did not belong to
anyone in the group, went to Walmart with the group after finding the cards,
was present in the store when the stolen cards were used to purchase over
$2,400 of property, and was given headphones by K.C. after the purchases were
made. It argues the trial court was not required to believe V.R. and J.G.’s self-
serving claims and it was entirely reasonable for the trial court to infer that V.R.
and his friends, including K.C., were acting in concert.
[11] Ind.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 12 2018, 7:11 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE John T. Wilson Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Ellen H. Meilaender Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of: October 12, 2018
V.R. Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-JV-693 Appellant, Appeal from the Madison Circuit v. Court The Honorable G. George Pancol, State of Indiana, Judge The Honorable Carl VanDorn, Appellee. Senior Judge Trial Court Cause No. 48C02-1709-JD-280
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-693 | October 12, 2018 Page 1 of 7 [1] V.R. appeals his adjudication as a delinquent for committing acts that would
constitute fraud as a level 6 felony if committed by an adult. V.R. raises one
issue which we restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his
adjudication as a delinquent. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In July 2017, V.R., J.G., K.C., and S.B. were walking in a park and found
credit cards which belonged to Philip Lavelle. V.R. and the other individuals
went to Walmart and Meijer, and Lavelle’s credit cards were used to purchase
merchandise. K.C. gave V.R. headphones. J.G. received a phone and
headphones. At around 8:00 a.m. on July 17, 2017, Lavelle received a call
from someone who had found his wallet. Lavelle’s wallet did not have the
cards in it and he discovered that his vehicle “had been rummaged through.”
Transcript Volume I at 9.
[3] On September 5, 2017, the State filed a petition alleging that V.R. committed
acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute theft and fraud as level 6
felonies. The court held a factfinding hearing at which it heard testimony from
Lavelle, J.G., V.R., and K.C. Lavelle testified that two of his credit cards were
missing and that he became aware that the cards were used to complete
transactions at Walmart and Meijer which he did not authorize. He testified
that a total of $2,490.06 was charged to one of the cards and approximately
$700 was charged to the other card.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-693 | October 12, 2018 Page 2 of 7 [4] When asked “you were all present at Walmart when the charges were made,”
J.G. testified “[e]verybody was doing they own little thing. I am [J.G.]. I can
only tell you about [J.G.]” and “[s]omebody was playing on the bikes. So they
be doing what they feel. Just do what you do. I am not nobody’s keeper but
[J.G.’s].” Id. at 14. The prosecutor asked “but you used those cards? Those
cards were used at Walmart while you were there?” Id. at 16. J.G. replied
“[y]eah.” Id. When asked “[a]nd you got items related to those transactions,”
J.G. again replied “[y]eah.” Id.
[5] V.R. testified “I didn’t see no purchases made” and, when asked why, answered
“actually, we was all spread around the store.” Id. at 21. V.R. indicated that he
did not know anything about the charges on the credit cards and that he first
learned there were cards being used for purchases when he received a call from
a detective. When asked “[n]ow, on the items that were purchased, did any of
those end up in your possession,” V.R. replied “I did have an item” and “it was
two headphones, little headphones.” Id. at 22. When asked “who had you get
those,” V.R. answered “[K.C.],” and when asked “[h]e gave them to you,” V.R.
replied “Uh huh.” Id. at 23. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked V.R.
about the headphones he received, and V.R. stated “I actually don’t even think
they was from the store.” Id. at 25.
[6] When asked “[d]o you remember telling . . . the police officer, that you all went
to Walmart and that you had credit cards that didn’t belong to anyone in the
group,” K.C. testified “[y]es. They belonged to me. I swiped them. Yes.” Id.
at 29. When asked “so the persons that were there when the items were taken,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-693 | October 12, 2018 Page 3 of 7 okay, were bought, would be the persons that you were referring to that knew
that the cards didn’t belong to anyone in the group. Would that be fair to say,”
K.C. answered “[s]ure.” Id.
[7] The court found that V.R. committed acts which, if committed by an adult,
constituted fraud as a level 6 felony and found the allegation that he committed
acts of theft to be not true. The court placed V.R. on supervised probation and
scheduled a review hearing.
Discussion
[8] The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain V.R.’s adjudication as a
delinquent. When the State seeks to have a juvenile adjudicated as a delinquent
for committing an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, the State
must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. J.L. v. State,
5 N.E.3d 431, 442 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). In reviewing a juvenile adjudication,
this court will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting
the judgment and will neither reweigh evidence nor judge the credibility of the
witnesses. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a
reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the juvenile was guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt, we will affirm the adjudication. Id.
[9] V.R. claims the evidence is insufficient to sustain the delinquency adjudication.
He argues the evidence did not show he had a credit card in his possession or
used a credit card to purchase any items, that J.G. knew V.R. was in the store
when the credit cards were used but did not know what V.R. was doing at the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-693 | October 12, 2018 Page 4 of 7 time, and that K.C. testified that he was the person who stole the cards. V.R.
points to his testimony that he did not think the headphones he received from
K.C. were from the stores. V.R. also argues that there is no evidence that he
actively participated in the crime, that he knew the crime was going to happen
or there was any agreement among the group to use the cards before the
commission of the crime, that his group of friends left together, or that the
headphones he received from K.C. were purchased with the stolen credit cards.
[10] The State responds that it was not required to prove that V.R. personally
possessed Lavelle’s credit cards or used them to make purchases and that the
evidence was sufficient to show V.R. acted as an accomplice. It argues V.R.
was present when the cards were found, knew the cards did not belong to
anyone in the group, went to Walmart with the group after finding the cards,
was present in the store when the stolen cards were used to purchase over
$2,400 of property, and was given headphones by K.C. after the purchases were
made. It argues the trial court was not required to believe V.R. and J.G.’s self-
serving claims and it was entirely reasonable for the trial court to infer that V.R.
and his friends, including K.C., were acting in concert.
[11] Ind. Code § 35-43-5-4 provides in part that a person who, with intent to
defraud, obtains property by using a credit card, knowing that the credit card
was unlawfully obtained or retained, commits fraud, a level 6 felony. The State
alleged in relevant part that V.R. “did, with intent to defraud, obtain property
using a credit card knowing that the credit card was unlawfully obtained or
retained.” Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 16. A person who knowingly or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-693 | October 12, 2018 Page 5 of 7 intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to commit an offense
commits that offense. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4. In determining whether a person
aided another in the commission of a crime, the Indiana Supreme Court has
considered the following four factors: (1) presence at the scene of the crime; (2)
companionship with another engaged in criminal activity; (3) failure to oppose
the crime; and (4) a defendant’s conduct before, during, and after the
occurrence of the crime. D.J. v. State, 88 N.E.3d 236, 241-242 (Ind. Ct. App.
2017) (citing Garland v. State, 788 N.E.2d 425, 431 (Ind. 2003)).
[12] Here, the State presented evidence that V.R. was present when he and his
friends obtained Lavelle’s credit cards, accompanied the group to the stores,
and was present in the stores when K.C. used the cards to make the purchases.
V.R. did not oppose the crime. K.C. gave V.R. a set of headphones, and J.G.
received a phone and headphones. The evidence is sufficient, considering the
factors above, to find V.R. acted as an accomplice. See D.J., 88 N.E.3d at 242
(noting D.J. was present during the commission of the crime and did not
oppose the crime and holding there was sufficient evidence to find he acted as
an accomplice). V.R.’s argument that we credit his testimony or the testimony
of the other witnesses constitutes a request to reweigh the credibility of the
witnesses and the evidence, which we cannot do. See J.L., 5 N.E.3d at 442.
[13] Based upon our review of the facts most favorable to the adjudication, we
conclude the State presented evidence of probative value from which a
reasonable factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that V.R.
committed delinquent acts constituting fraud if committed by an adult.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-693 | October 12, 2018 Page 6 of 7 [14] Affirmed.
Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-693 | October 12, 2018 Page 7 of 7