Keith Hosea v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 15, 2016
• Docket: 24A01-1512-CR-2188
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jul 15 2016, 8:53 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK 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 Mark Small Gregory F. Zoeller Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Jodi Kathryn Stein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Keith Hosea, July 15, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 24A01-1512-CR-2188 v. Appeal from the Franklin Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Clay M. Appellee-Plaintiff Kellerman, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 24C02-1408-F5-949

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A01-1512-CR-2188 | July 15, 2016 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Keith Hosea appeals his conviction for level 5 felony burglary following a jury

trial. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the State presented

sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Finding the evidence sufficient,

we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On July 29, 2014, at about 4:44 a.m., Keith Hosea used a crowbar to break in

and enter through the back door of a bar. Four infrared surveillance cameras

captured Hosea breaking into and re-entering the bar three separate times over a

forty-five-minute period. The cameras also captured Hosea stealing alcohol, t-

shirts, candy, and money from the bar.

[3] Hosea lived in a trailer that was about a five-minute walk from the bar. At the

time of the burglary Hosea was banned from the bar and was only allowed to

purchase carryout alcohol. Hosea is described as being tall and lanky, with

hollow cheeks and high cheek bones and a scar on the right side of his face.

Due to Hosea’s distinct features three witnesses were able to identify him in the

surveillance video before and during the trial. Bar owner Beverly Harrison has

known Hosea since the 1990s and was able to identify Hosea in the video by his

cheek, jawline, hair, and gait. Longtime bartender Lujuana Wilson has known

Hosea through her family her whole life and identified Hosea because of his

hollow cheeks and scar on the right cheek and by his build. Franklin County

Sheriff’s Deputy John Roberts has known Hosea through his family since 1984

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A01-1512-CR-2188 | July 15, 2016 Page 2 of 4 and identified Hosea by his high cheek bones, the structure of his nose, and the

way he carried himself. Each person who identified Hosea had no doubt in his

or her mind that he was the person in the video. Hosea was arrested three

weeks after the burglary occurred.

[4] The State charged Hosea with level 5 felony burglary. Following a trial, the

jury found Hosea guilty as charged. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [5] Hosea challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his burglary

conviction. “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not

reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility; rather, we consider only the

evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the judgment.” Hudson v.

State, 20 N.E.3d 900, 903 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “This review respects the

factfinder’s exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence.” Id. (citation and

quotation marks omitted). “We must affirm if a reasonable trier of fact could

find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the probative

evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence presented.” Id.

[6] Hosea’s sole assertion on appeal is that due to the “[g]reen fuzzy” quality of the

surveillance video the witnesses’ identifications of him were insufficient to

prove that he committed the burglary. Appellant’s Br. At 12. We disagree.

Three witnesses who have known Hosea for years were able to use the video

and still photographs taken from the video to identify him. Each witness had

knowledge of his physical appearance and gait and was able to identify him by

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A01-1512-CR-2188 | July 15, 2016 Page 3 of 4 pinpointing his distinct features in the video and photographs. Hosea also

argues that none of the stolen items were found in his possession. However,

Hosea was arrested a few weeks after the incident, which gave him adequate

time to get rid of the evidence.

[7] Hosea’s argument is essentially an invitation for this Court to reweigh the

evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we will not do. The State

presented sufficient evidence to allow the jury to determine that Hosea

committed burglary. Therefore, we affirm Hosea’s conviction.

[8] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A01-1512-CR-2188 | July 15, 2016 Page 4 of 4