Justin A. Hines v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 30, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CR-3136
• 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 Jul 30 2019, 9:00 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Benjamin J. Church Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Church Law Office Attorney General of Indiana Monticello, Indiana Caroline G. Templeton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Justin A. Hines, July 30, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-3136 v. Appeal from the White Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Robert B. Mrzlack, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 91D01-1711-F6-204

Pyle, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3136 | July 30, 2019 Page 1 of 5 Statement of the Case [1] Justin Hines (“Hines”) appeals his conviction following a jury trial for Level 6

felony residential entry.1 Hines specifically argues that there is insufficient

evidence to support his conviction. Concluding that there is sufficient evidence,

we affirm Hines’ conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Issues Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Hines’ conviction for Level 6 felony residential entry.

Facts [3] In November 2017, the State charged Hines with Level 6 felony domestic

battery, Level 6 felony residential entry, and Class A misdemeanor criminal

trespass. At trial, Hillary Likens (“Likens”) testified that she was in her living

room when Hines opened the door to her apartment and walked through the

front door. Hines pushed Likens into a wall and grabbed her cell phone out of

her pocket. Likens told Hines to leave her apartment. Hines got into a gold car

and threw Likens’ cell phone out of the window as he drove away. Likens also

1 IND. CODE § 35-43-2-1.5.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3136 | July 30, 2019 Page 2 of 5 testified that Hines had asked her to write a letter explaining that she had

invited him into her apartment. Likens never wrote such a letter.

[4] Also at trial, the property manager at Likens’ apartment complex (“the property

manager”) testified that she had heard Likens scream and had watched a gold

vehicle leave the complex. When the property manager arrived at Likens’

apartment, Likens, who was crying, was in the process of contacting the police.

[5] Monticello Police Department Patrolman Nathan Miller (“Patrolman Miller”)

testified that he was dispatched to Likens’ apartment with information that

there had been an uninvited guest in the apartment. When Patrolman Miller

arrived at the apartment, Likens was crying and upset.

[6] Also at trial, Hines and his friend, the driver of the gold car, testified that Likens

had opened the door to her apartment and invited Hines into her home. A jury

convicted Hines of residential entry and criminal trespass. Hines now appeals

his residential entry conviction.

Decision [7] Hines’s sole argument is that there is insufficient evidence to support his Level 6

felony residential entry conviction. Our standard of review for sufficiency of

the evidence claims is well-settled. We consider only the probative evidence

and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d

144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness

credibility. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact finder

could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3136 | July 30, 2019 Page 3 of 5 The evidence is sufficient if an inference may be reasonably drawn from it to

support the verdict. Id. at 147.

[8] Here, Hines specifically argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his

conviction because Likens’ testimony about Hines breaking and entering into

her apartment without her permission was “equivocal” and “contradictory.”

(Hines’ Br. 9). Hines therefore asks us to apply the incredible dubiosity rule.

According to Hines, if this Court applies the incredible dubiosity rule, “there

would be no evidence to sustain a Residential Entry conviction.” (Hines’ Br.

9).

[9] The incredible dubiosity rule provides that a court may impinge on the jury’s

responsibility to judge witness credibility only when confronted with inherently

improbable testimony. Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 754 (Ind. 2015). This

rule is applied in limited circumstances, namely where there is “1) a sole

testifying witness; 2) testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or

the result of coercion; and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence.”

Id. at 756.

[10] Our review of the evidence makes it clear that the incredible dubiosity rule

simply does not apply in this case for three reasons. First, there were multiple

testifying witnesses in this case. See Moore, 27 N.E.3d at 756. Second, Likens’

testimony was not internally inconsistent. See Smith v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1211,

1221 (Ind. 2015) (explaining that the second prong of the test is satisfied “only

when the witness’s trial testimony was inconsistent within itself, not that it was

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3136 | July 30, 2019 Page 4 of 5 inconsistent with other evidence or prior testimony”). Third, the testimony

from the other witnesses provided circumstantial evidence of the crime.

Specifically, the property manager, who had heard Likens scream, testified that

she had found Likens in her apartment crying and in the process of contacting

the police. In addition, Patrolman Miller testified that he had been dispatched

to Likens’ apartment with information that there had been an uninvited guest in

the apartment. When the patrolman arrived at the apartment, Likens was

crying and upset. The State presented sufficient evidence to convict Hines of

Level 6 felony residential entry.

[11] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3136 | July 30, 2019 Page 5 of 5