Thames v. State

653 N.E.2d 517, 1995 Ind. App. LEXIS 919, 1995 WL 430767
Indiana Court of Appeals·Decided July 24, 1995·No. 49A04-9410-CR-428·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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] RILEY, J., concurs. SULLIVAN, J., concurs with separate opinion.

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

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

653 N.E.2d 517 (Thames v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Starlon Lewis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2016
Dennis Ogutu v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2012
Scruggs v. State
883 N.E.2d 189 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2008)
Sanders v. State
734 N.E.2d 646 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2000)
Smith v. State
718 N.E.2d 794 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1999)
Thames v. State
653 N.E.2d 517 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1995)