Sparko Spearman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 17, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-1084
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Oct 17 2018, 9:29 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court

the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Victoria L. Bailey Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Timothy J. Burns Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana Jesse R. Drum Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Sparko Spearman, October 17, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1084 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Helen W. Marchal, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G15-1610-F6-039833

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

[1] Sparko Spearman appeals her convictions for Class A misdemeanor resisting

law enforcement (by fleeing) and Class A misdemeanor driving while

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1084 | October 17, 2018 Page 1 of 2 suspended. Spearman does not dispute that she was in a car that fled from a

state trooper; she contends only that the State failed to prove that she was the

driver of the car. We disagree. The State’s evidence was easily sufficient to

identify Spearman as the driver. Most notably, the trooper testified that

Spearman exited the driver’s door and told him that she did not stop because

her boyfriend told her to “keep going.” Tr. pp. 60, 105. Spearman does not

dispute this evidence but claims that her own trial testimony—that her

intoxicated boyfriend was driving and that she merely switched seats with him

as the car came to a stop—is “no less credible” than the trooper’s testimony.

Appellant’s Br. p. 10. This is merely a request for us to decide who is more

believable, which is the trier of fact’s role, not ours. Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d

878, 882 (Ind. 2017). We therefore affirm Spearman’s convictions.

[2] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Kirsch, J, concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1084 | October 17, 2018 Page 2 of 2