Thames v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Thames v. State

653 N.E.2d 517, 1995 Ind. App. LEXIS 919, 1995 WL 430767

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 24, 1995

Docket49A04-9410-CR-428

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 653 N.E.2d 517 (Thames v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thames v. State, 653 N.E.2d 517, 1995 Ind. App. LEXIS 919, 1995 WL 430767 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

CHEZEM, Judge.

Case Summary

Defendant-Appellant, Larry Thames (“Thames”), appeals from his conviction for Neglect of a Dependent, a class D felony. We affirm.

Issue

Thames presents one issue for our review: whether there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Facts and Procedural History

Thames was left during the day to care for AL., his girlfriend’s five-year old child. He left the child alone. She wandered out of her home and was eventually taken to the police department. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary.

Discussion and Decision

Thames was convicted of Neglect of a Dependent, I.C. § 35-46-l-4(a)(l): “A person having the care of a dependent ... who knowingly or intentionally: (1) places the dependent in a situation that may endanger his life or health ... commits neglect of a dependent, a class D felony.” ' Thames argues there is insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly or intentionally placed A.L. in a situation that would endanger her life or health. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the witnesses’ credibility. Jones v. State (1992), Ind., 589 N.E.2d 241, 242.

A person knowingly commits neglect of a child when he is subjectively aware of a high probability that he placed the child in a dangerous situation. Hill v. State (1989), Ind.App., 535 N.E.2d 153. AL.’s mother testified that she left AL. in the care of Thames while she was at work. AL. testified that she was home alone with Thames and when she awoke from her nap, Thames was not in the home. Thames told the police that he was two streets over helping someone move furniture. AL. was found wandering the street at approximately 1:30 p.m. and Thames did not return home until 4:00 p.m. Thames was experienced at watching children and thus should have been subjectively aware of a high probability that he placed A.L. in a dangerous situation by leaving her at home alone.

Affirmed.

[518]*518RILEY, J., concurs. SULLIVAN, J., concurs with separate opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

CHEZEM, Judge.

Case Summary

Defendant-Appellant, Larry Thames (“Thames”), appeals from his conviction for Neglect of a Dependent, a class D felony. We affirm.

Issue

Thames presents one issue for our review: whether there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Facts and Procedural History

Thames was left during the day to care for AL., his girlfriend’s five-year old child. He left the child alone. She wandered out of her home and was eventually taken to the police department. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary.

Discussion and Decision

Thames was convicted of Neglect of a Dependent, I.C. § 35-46-l-4(a)(l): “A person having the care of a dependent ... who knowingly or intentionally: (1) places the dependent in a situation that may endanger his life or health ... commits neglect of a dependent, a class D felony.” ' Thames argues there is insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly or intentionally placed A.L. in a situation that would endanger her life or health. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the witnesses’ credibility. Jones v. State (1992), Ind., 589 N.E.2d 241, 242.

A person knowingly commits neglect of a child when he is subjectively aware of a high probability that he placed the child in a dangerous situation. Hill v. State (1989), Ind.App., 535 N.E.2d 153. AL.’s mother testified that she left AL. in the care of Thames while she was at work. AL. testified that she was home alone with Thames and when she awoke from her nap, Thames was not in the home. Thames told the police that he was two streets over helping someone move furniture. AL. was found wandering the street at approximately 1:30 p.m. and Thames did not return home until 4:00 p.m. Thames was experienced at watching children and thus should have been subjectively aware of a high probability that he placed A.L. in a dangerous situation by leaving her at home alone.

Affirmed.

[518]*518RILEY, J., concurs. SULLIVAN, J., concurs with separate opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 N.E.2d 517, 1995 Ind. App. LEXIS 919, 1995 WL 430767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thames-v-state-indctapp-1995.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack