Katrina Louise Fouts v. State of Indiana

Opinion

FILED

Jun 13 2023, 8:59 am

OPINION ON REHEARING CLERK

Indiana Supreme Court

Court of Appeals

and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Eugene A. Kress Theodore E. Rokita Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana J.T. Whitehead Nicole D. Wiggins Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Katrina Louise Fouts, June 13, 2023 Court of Appeals Case No.

Appellant-Defendant, 22A-CR-917 v. Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court

State of Indiana, The Honorable William J. Hughes, Judge

Appellee-Plaintiff.

Trial Court Cause No. 29D03-2009-MR-5701

Opinion on Rehearing by Judge Robb Judges Riley and Tavitas concur.

Robb, Judge.

[1] Katrina Fouts was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, a Level 1 felony,

and failure to report human remains, a Class A misdemeanor. She appealed

her convictions, and we affirmed. Fouts v. State, 207 N.E.3d 1257 (Ind. Ct. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 22A-CR-917| June 13, 2023 Page 1 of 2

App. 2023). Fouts has now filed a petition for rehearing. We grant the

rehearing for the limited purpose of addressing a factual error in the opinion,

but otherwise reaffirm our opinion.

[2] In recounting the facts, the opinion states that police found “multiple items of

interest” in a Nissan Rogue that was located in Fouts’ garage. Id. at 1262.

Fouts points out that this is a misstatement: the Rogue was found in her co-

conspirator’s garage. Petition for Rehearing at 4. We agree and hereby correct

that misstatement.

[3] Fouts raised several issues on appeal, including whether the evidence of “both

the requisite intent to commit murder and of an agreement” was sufficient to

support her conviction of conspiracy. See Appellant’s Brief at 6. 1 After careful

reconsideration of the issues raised with this correction in mind, we reaffirm

our original decision that there was sufficient evidence to support Fouts’

conspiracy to commit murder conviction.

Riley, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

1 The opinion states that Fouts “does not challenge the overt act prong.” Id. at 1263 n.3. Fouts argues on rehearing that she “argued repeatedly that there was no agreement and it is impliedly incorporated into all her arguments that there was no overt act attributable to her[.]” Pet. for Reh’g at 5 (emphasis added). We disagree. Fouts did argue there was no evidence of an “overt agreement,” see Appellant’s Brief at 24, but did not argue, impliedly or otherwise, there was insufficient evidence of an overt act.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 22A-CR-917| June 13, 2023 Page 2 of 2