Rebecca Lawson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 5, 2016
• Docket: 49A05-1603-CR-565
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Oct 05 2016, 9:16 am

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as CLERK precedent or cited before any court except for the Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, and Tax Court

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Ruth A. Johnson Gregory F. Zoeller Deborah Ball Markisohn Attorney General of Indiana Marion County Public Defender Agency Richard C. Webster Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Rebecca Lawson, October 5, 2016

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1603-CR-565 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court. The Honorable Linda Brown, Judge. State of Indiana, Cause No. 49G10-1511-CM-40204 Appellee-Plaintiff.

Shepard, Senior Judge

[1] Rebecca Lawson was convicted of one count of criminal mischief as a Class B

misdemeanor. On appeal, she contends the evidence is insufficient to support

her conviction. We affirm.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-565 | October 5, 2016 Page 1 of 5 Issue [2] The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to

support Lawson’s conviction given that a second individual was present at the

scene of the crime.

Facts and Procedural History [3] The evidence favorable to the judgment is as follows. On November 11, 2015,

Deborah Hardin left her job and drove to her daughter’s residence, arriving at

about 1:20 a.m. Hardin’s daughter, Simone Parrott, lived with her two children

at the residence, and Hardin’s son, Jason Parrott, was also at the house on that

occasion. Hardin parked her 1999 Chevy Tahoe behind her daughter’s house,

near a security light.

[4] At 2:30 a.m. or so, Simone was awakened by the sound of her dog barking.

She and Hardin looked out the window toward the back yard and observed

Lawson, who was wearing a dark blue sweatshirt and jeans, and another person

in back of the house near Hardin’s Chevy Tahoe. They then observed Lawson

and the other person run from Hardin’s vehicle to Lawson’s own gray Kia

parked in the alley and then drive away.

[5] Simone and Hardin immediately went outside to examine the Tahoe.

Although the tires were undamaged and fully inflated when Hardin drove from

work to her daughter’s house, all four tires were now slashed and flat.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-565 | October 5, 2016 Page 2 of 5 [6] Hardin’s son Jason had dated Lawson, but they broke up the day before

Hardin’s tires were slashed. The break up was not amicable.

[7] The State charged Lawson with one count of Class B misdemeanor criminal 1 mischief. After a bench trial, the court found Lawson guilty as charged. The

trial court sentenced Lawson to 180 days in the Marion County Jail, with 176

days suspended. Lawson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [8] When we review a claim such as Lawson’s, challenging the sufficiency of the

evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the

witnesses. Suggs v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1190 (Ind. 2016). We consider only the

probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Horton

v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154 (Ind. 2016). A conviction will be affirmed if there is

substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense

such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt. Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065 (Ind. 2015).

[9] To establish that Lawson committed the offense, the State was required to

establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Lawson recklessly, knowingly, or

intentionally damaged or defaced Hardin’s property without her consent. Ind.

Code § 35-43-1-2(a). Because there were no witnesses who actually observed

1 Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a) (2014).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-565 | October 5, 2016 Page 3 of 5 Lawson slash Hardin’s tires, the evidence presented was at least partly

circumstantial. Lawson contends that there is reasonable doubt because

another person was also present at the scene of the crime.

[10] When circumstantial evidence is used to establish guilt, the question on review

is whether reasonable minds could reach the inferences drawn from the

evidence. Maxwell v. State, 731 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied.

If so, the evidence is sufficient. Id. On review we do not determine whether the

circumstantial evidence overcomes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Id. Instead, we determine whether inferences may be reasonably drawn from

that evidence to support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[11] Hardin testified that her vehicle was undamaged when she parked it behind her

daughter’s house after work. When she was awakened at 2:30 a.m., she

observed Lawson and another person present near her vehicle and then run

toward a car. The tires on Hardin’s vehicle had been slashed and were deflated.

Simone also observed Lawson outside her house near the Tahoe, and saw

Lawson and another person run away toward a car. Jason saw the damage to

his mother’s vehicle and testified that he and Lawson had broken up the

previous day.

[12] Inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence support the conviction beyond a

reasonable doubt. The presence of a second, unknown individual at the scene

does not render the inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence insufficient

to support Lawson’s conviction.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-565 | October 5, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Conclusion [13] In light of the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

[14] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-565 | October 5, 2016 Page 5 of 5