Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 03 2014, 9:27 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
ANTHONY S. CHURCHWARD GREGORY F. ZOELLER Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Leonard, Hammond, Thoma & Terrill Fort Wayne, Indiana JAMES B. MARTIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
SHEARECE M. LOVE, ) ) Appellant-Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 02A04-1308-CR-400 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge Cause No. 02D06-1205-FB-89
March 3, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER, Judge In this case, appellant-defendant Shearece M. Love and two other women waited
for Breanna McGhee to arrive at her place of employment. When McGee arrived, the
three women physically attacked her and took her purse. Now, Love appeals her
conviction for Robbery,1 a class B felony. More particularly, Love argues that there was
insufficient evidence to convict her and that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay
evidence, namely, the testimony of a police detective regarding a record he received from
the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) concerning the registration plate number
belonging to Love. Finding sufficient evidence and no other error, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
FACTS
On May 1, 2012, McGhee was working at the Cap and Cork Liquor Store in Fort
Wayne. McGhee’s shift started around 3:00 p.m. Love, her sister, Leanna Love, and
Jacqueline Harris parked their vehicle behind a nearby Blockbuster Store before McGhee
arrived for her shift.
After another Cap and Cork employee informed the three women that McGhee
would not arrive until around 3:00 p.m., they waited in the nearby Jimmy John’s and
Papa John’s until McGhee arrived. Mark Milowski, the general manager at Papa John’s
did not see the three women carrying purses, and they did not order any food. A short
time later, he saw the three women hitting another woman.
1 Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1. 2 Similarly, Matthew Bennett, who worked at Jimmy John’s observed the three
women. He stated that they did not order any food and that they claimed they were
waiting on someone. A short time later, Bennett saw the three women leave and walk
towards Cap and Cork.
Around 3:00 p.m., McGhee parked in front of Cap and Cork and exited her vehicle
carrying her black purse. McGhee was immediately confronted by Love, Leanna, and
Harris. Love asked if McGhee was surprised to see her while Harris maced her. McGhee
dropped her purse and fell to the ground. The three women repeatedly hit McGhee in her
head, back, and front. The attack finally ended after the women were confronted by a
Cap and Cork employee; however, McGhee was unable to find her purse.
Love, Leanna, and Harris ran to their vehicle. Jason Miller and Kayta Thompson
observed that one woman dropped a black purse but continued to run and that another
woman who was following picked it up while still running. The couple followed the
vehicle that the three women were in and copied the license plate number. They gave the
number to Officer Schultz, who ran it through the BMV database, which indicated that
the vehicle belonged to Love. Detective Brent Roddy verified this information and relied
on it in the course of the investigation to attempt to locate the vehicle and/or Love at the
Canterbury Green Apartments.
On May 25, 2012, the State charged Love the class B felony robbery. On June 20,
2013, Love’s jury trial commenced. During the trial, Love objected on hearsay grounds
to Detective Roddy’s testimony that the BMV search identified Love as the owner of the
3 getaway vehicle, reasoning that Detective Roddy received the information from Officer
Schultz and that a BMV representative was not testifying. Love conceded that the jury
had already heard “identification from the alleged victim.” Tr. p. 120. The prosecutor
maintained that the testimony was not going to the truth of the matter asserted and was
introduced to explain why the lead investigator of the case “continued on this
investigation as he did after he received the information,” which prompted the search at
Canterbury Green Apartments. Id. at 120-22. The trial court overruled Love’s objection.
On June 20, 2013, the jury found Love guilty as charged. On July 24, 2013, the
trial court sentenced Love to six years in the Department of Correction. Love now
appeals.
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Love argues that there was insufficient evidence to show that she or the other two
women took the purse from McGhee’s person or the ground. Our standard of review for
sufficiency claims is well-settled. We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the
credibility of the witnesses. Perrey v. State, 824 N.E.2d 372, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
We only consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable
inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. Where there is substantial evidence of probative
value to support the judgment, it will not be set aside. Id.
To convict Love of class B felony robbery, the State was required to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that she knowingly or intentionally took property from McGhee or in
the presence of McGhee by using or threatening to use force on McGhee or by putting
4 McGhee in fear, and those actions resulted in bodily injury to McGee. Ind. Code § 35-
42-5-1. Love challenges only one element, namely, that she knowingly or intentionally
took McGhee’s purse.
In this case, Milowski, the general manager at Papa John’s, testified that he did not
notice the three women carrying a purse while they were in his store. Tr. p. 89. The
three women subsequently attacked McGhee who was carrying a black purse. Id. at 43-
45. McGhee dropped her purse after being maced, id. at 45, and could not find it after the
attack. Tr. p. 50.
The couple who saw the three women running away observed that one of them
dropped a black purse but continued to run and that a woman following her picked up the
purse while still running. Tr. p. 92-93; 105-07. From these facts and circumstances, a
factfinder could reasonably conclude that there was sufficient evidence to convict Love
of class B felony robbery. Consequently, this argument fails.
II. Hearsay
Love contends that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony at trial.
More particularly, Love maintains that it was error to permit Detective Roddy to testify
regarding the results of a search conducted on the BMV database because he was not
employed by the BMV.
The decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the trial court’s sound
discretion. Bacher v. State, 686 N.E.2d 791, 793 (Ind. 1997). Accordingly, we will not
reverse the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence absent an abuse of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 03 2014, 9:27 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
ANTHONY S. CHURCHWARD GREGORY F. ZOELLER Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Leonard, Hammond, Thoma & Terrill Fort Wayne, Indiana JAMES B. MARTIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
SHEARECE M. LOVE, ) ) Appellant-Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 02A04-1308-CR-400 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge Cause No. 02D06-1205-FB-89
March 3, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER, Judge In this case, appellant-defendant Shearece M. Love and two other women waited
for Breanna McGhee to arrive at her place of employment. When McGee arrived, the
three women physically attacked her and took her purse. Now, Love appeals her
conviction for Robbery,1 a class B felony. More particularly, Love argues that there was
insufficient evidence to convict her and that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay
evidence, namely, the testimony of a police detective regarding a record he received from
the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) concerning the registration plate number
belonging to Love. Finding sufficient evidence and no other error, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
FACTS
On May 1, 2012, McGhee was working at the Cap and Cork Liquor Store in Fort
Wayne. McGhee’s shift started around 3:00 p.m. Love, her sister, Leanna Love, and
Jacqueline Harris parked their vehicle behind a nearby Blockbuster Store before McGhee
arrived for her shift.
After another Cap and Cork employee informed the three women that McGhee
would not arrive until around 3:00 p.m., they waited in the nearby Jimmy John’s and
Papa John’s until McGhee arrived. Mark Milowski, the general manager at Papa John’s
did not see the three women carrying purses, and they did not order any food. A short
time later, he saw the three women hitting another woman.
1 Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1. 2 Similarly, Matthew Bennett, who worked at Jimmy John’s observed the three
women. He stated that they did not order any food and that they claimed they were
waiting on someone. A short time later, Bennett saw the three women leave and walk
towards Cap and Cork.
Around 3:00 p.m., McGhee parked in front of Cap and Cork and exited her vehicle
carrying her black purse. McGhee was immediately confronted by Love, Leanna, and
Harris. Love asked if McGhee was surprised to see her while Harris maced her. McGhee
dropped her purse and fell to the ground. The three women repeatedly hit McGhee in her
head, back, and front. The attack finally ended after the women were confronted by a
Cap and Cork employee; however, McGhee was unable to find her purse.
Love, Leanna, and Harris ran to their vehicle. Jason Miller and Kayta Thompson
observed that one woman dropped a black purse but continued to run and that another
woman who was following picked it up while still running. The couple followed the
vehicle that the three women were in and copied the license plate number. They gave the
number to Officer Schultz, who ran it through the BMV database, which indicated that
the vehicle belonged to Love. Detective Brent Roddy verified this information and relied
on it in the course of the investigation to attempt to locate the vehicle and/or Love at the
Canterbury Green Apartments.
On May 25, 2012, the State charged Love the class B felony robbery. On June 20,
2013, Love’s jury trial commenced. During the trial, Love objected on hearsay grounds
to Detective Roddy’s testimony that the BMV search identified Love as the owner of the
3 getaway vehicle, reasoning that Detective Roddy received the information from Officer
Schultz and that a BMV representative was not testifying. Love conceded that the jury
had already heard “identification from the alleged victim.” Tr. p. 120. The prosecutor
maintained that the testimony was not going to the truth of the matter asserted and was
introduced to explain why the lead investigator of the case “continued on this
investigation as he did after he received the information,” which prompted the search at
Canterbury Green Apartments. Id. at 120-22. The trial court overruled Love’s objection.
On June 20, 2013, the jury found Love guilty as charged. On July 24, 2013, the
trial court sentenced Love to six years in the Department of Correction. Love now
appeals.
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Love argues that there was insufficient evidence to show that she or the other two
women took the purse from McGhee’s person or the ground. Our standard of review for
sufficiency claims is well-settled. We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the
credibility of the witnesses. Perrey v. State, 824 N.E.2d 372, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
We only consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable
inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. Where there is substantial evidence of probative
value to support the judgment, it will not be set aside. Id.
To convict Love of class B felony robbery, the State was required to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that she knowingly or intentionally took property from McGhee or in
the presence of McGhee by using or threatening to use force on McGhee or by putting
4 McGhee in fear, and those actions resulted in bodily injury to McGee. Ind. Code § 35-
42-5-1. Love challenges only one element, namely, that she knowingly or intentionally
took McGhee’s purse.
In this case, Milowski, the general manager at Papa John’s, testified that he did not
notice the three women carrying a purse while they were in his store. Tr. p. 89. The
three women subsequently attacked McGhee who was carrying a black purse. Id. at 43-
45. McGhee dropped her purse after being maced, id. at 45, and could not find it after the
attack. Tr. p. 50.
The couple who saw the three women running away observed that one of them
dropped a black purse but continued to run and that a woman following her picked up the
purse while still running. Tr. p. 92-93; 105-07. From these facts and circumstances, a
factfinder could reasonably conclude that there was sufficient evidence to convict Love
of class B felony robbery. Consequently, this argument fails.
II. Hearsay
Love contends that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony at trial.
More particularly, Love maintains that it was error to permit Detective Roddy to testify
regarding the results of a search conducted on the BMV database because he was not
employed by the BMV.
The decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the trial court’s sound
discretion. Bacher v. State, 686 N.E.2d 791, 793 (Ind. 1997). Accordingly, we will not
reverse the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence absent an abuse of
5 discretion. Becker v. State, 695 N.E.2d 968, 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). An abuse of
discretion occurs where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of
the facts and circumstances before it. Myers v. State, 718 N.E.2d 783, 789 (Ind. Ct. App.
1999).
The Indiana Rules of Evidence define hearsay as “a statement that: (1) is not made
by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing; and (2) is offered in evidence to
prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Ind. Evidence Rule 801(c). Generally, hearsay is
not admissible. Evid. R. 802. Nevertheless, some out-of-court statements are either
specifically excluded from the definition of hearsay or are considered exceptions to the
general rule excluding hearsay evidence.
Here, Detective Roddy testified that he received the license plate number from
Officer Schultz. Tr. p. 120. Officer Schultz “advised [Detective Roddy] that he had run .
. . that license plate.” Id. Detective Roddy verified it, and the license plate “came back
to Shearece Love.” Id. at 122. Detective Roddy testified that this information led police
to the Canterbury Green Apartments in an effort to locate Love. Id. Under these
circumstances, the information that Detective Roddy testified that he had obtained from
the BMV was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, it was admitted for
the purpose of clarifying the course of the investigation. See Patton v. State, 725 N.E.2d
462, 464 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that officer’s testimony was not hearsay because it
was offered to explain why a particular course of action was taken during a criminal
investigation rather than for the truth of the matter asserted). Accordingly, the trial court
6 did not err by permitting Detective Roddy to testify regarding the information he received
from the BMV about the getaway vehicle, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
NAJAM, J., and CRONE, J., concur.