James Curtis Todd v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 6, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CR-3017
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing May 06 2019, 10:39 am the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Evan Matthew Comer Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James Curtis Todd, May 6, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-3017 v. Appeal from the Sullivan Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Hugh R. Hunt, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 77D01-1804-CM-247

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3017 | May 6, 2019 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] In March of 2018, James Curtis Todd removed a gate and part of a fencerow

belonging to his cousin Jacob Todd, allegedly believing that the gate and

fencerow were on his land. Prior to the removal, Jacob had told James that a

survey had been conducted and it indicated that the fencerow was on Jacob’s

land. James was charged with and convicted of Class B misdemeanor criminal

mischief. James contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to

sustain his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In September of 2017, Jacob’s parents deeded to him a one-acre tract of land,

on which he planned to place a modular home. The southern boundary of

Jacob’s land abutted a tract of land that had once belonged to his great-

grandfather but by 2017 was owned by his cousin James. Near the boundary

line of the two properties was a fencerow which had been placed there years

prior to either Jacob or James owning their respective tracts. Prior to deeding

the land to Jacob, his parents contracted with a firm to conduct a land survey.

The survey indicated that the fencerow rested on Jacob’s land, some seven to

eight inches north of the southern boundary line.

[3] In March of 2018, a heated verbal dispute occurred between Jacob and James

after Jacob trimmed tree limbs along the fencerow. Jacob explained that a

survey had been conducted on his land, he knew where the property lines were,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3017 | May 6, 2019 Page 2 of 5 and there was no mistake as to the proper boundary lines. Jacob also offered to

give James a copy of the survey. James, disagreeing, claimed that the northern

boundary of his land extended eighteen feet north of the fencerow, meaning

that the fencerow was on his land. Eventually, police arrived and broke up the

dispute.

[4] Prior to the dispute, a gate attached to the fencerow had been kept open by the

previous owners for travel between the two tracts. After the dispute, however,

Jacob decided to permanently close the gate by burying a pole in the ground to

hold it shut and fastened it with a metal chain and lock. A day or two later,

Jacob discovered the pole, chain, and lock laying in his driveway by his

mailbox. Review of video footage recorded on a trail camera revealed that at

approximately 1:45 a.m., James and his girlfriend had removed the gate and

portions of the fencerow.

[5] On April 12, 2018, the State charged James with Class A misdemeanor criminal

trespass and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief. A bench trial was held on

September 12, 2018. On September 18, 2018, the trial court found James guilty

of criminal mischief and acquitted him of criminal trespass. The trial court

sentenced James to 180 days imprisonment with 168 days suspended and 353

days of non-reporting probation.

Discussion and Decision

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3017 | May 6, 2019 Page 3 of 5 [6] James contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his

criminal mischief conviction. James does not challenge that Jacob’s property

was damaged or defaced without his consent, only that he acted without the

required mens rea. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a

conviction, we consider only probative evidence and reasonable inferences

supporting the factfinder’s decision. Young v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1225, 1226 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. It is the role of the factfinder, not ours, to assess

witness credibility and weigh the evidence. Id. We will affirm a conviction

unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven

beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. To convict James of Class B misdemeanor

criminal mischief, the State had to establish that James recklessly, knowingly,

or intentionally damaged or defaced Jacob’s property without Jacob’s consent.

Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a).1

[7] We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to sustain James’s conviction.

Because Indiana Code section 35-43-1-2(a) is written in the disjunctive, the

State was only required to prove that James acted with one of the mens rea

listed. The record indicates that a survey was conducted which revealed that

1 Indiana Code section 35-41-2-2 dictates that (a) A person engages in conduct “intentionally” if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so. (b) A person engages in conduct “knowingly” if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so. (c) A person engages in conduct “recklessly” if he engages in the conduct in plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm that might result and the disregard involves a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3017 | May 6, 2019 Page 4 of 5 the fencerow was part of Jacob’s land. The record also indicates that James was

made aware of the results of the survey and offered a copy of it. James was on

notice that the boundary-line and ownership of the fencerow were disputed at

best, and our justice system has proper avenues for settling such a dispute, of

which James failed to avail himself. James’s claimed belief that the fencerow

was on his land does not absolve his dismantling of Jacob’s gate and fence at

1:45 a.m. in the morning, nor will we condone such actions. Dismantling the

fencerow in the middle of the night could have resulted, but thankfully did not,

in much more than just legal peril for James and his girlfriend, which is why the

General Assembly has sought to dissuade such behavior. Therefore, a

reasonable factfinder could find that James’s actions were reckless, knowing, or

intentional. James has failed to establish that there was insufficient evidence to

support his criminal mischief conviction.

[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Crone, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3017 | May 6, 2019 Page 5 of 5