Angel Renee Campbell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 26 2019, 6:32 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Anne Medlin Lowe Curtis T. Hill, Jr. James A. Piatt Attorney General of Indiana Riley Williams & Piatt, LLC Evan Matthew Comer Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Michael Vo Sherman Certified Legal Intern Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Angel Renee Campbell, August 26, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-217 v. Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff. S. Matthew Cook, Judge Pro Tempore Trial Court Cause No. 29D05-1802-CM-1516

Kirsch, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 1 of 5 [1] Angel Renee Campbell (“Campbell”) appeals her conviction for theft and raises

one issue, which we restate as: whether there was sufficient evidence to support

her conviction as an accomplice to theft as a Class A misdemeanor.1 We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On December 11, 2017, Jamie Byers (“Byers”), an employee of the Noblesville

Ace Hardware (“the store”), was working at the store’s cash register. Tr. Vol. 2

at 11. Campbell entered the store, approached Byers at the cash register, and

inquired about paint supplies. Id. at 11-12. Byers answered Campbell’s

questions and directed Campbell to the paint aisle. Id. Campbell returned to

the cash register and told Byers that she could not find the items she wanted.

Id. Byers left the cash register, returned to the paint aisle, and helped Campbell

find what she wanted. Id. When Byers returned to the cash register, she saw

that several Yeti drinking products near the front of the store were missing, so

she notified the store manager, Corey Musolf (“Musolf”). Id. at 13. Musolf

viewed security camera footage to confirm that items were taken before he

contacted the Noblesville Police Department. Id. at 20. The camera footage

showed Campbell walking into the store with a man, who was later identified

as Edward May (“May”), Campbell’s former husband. Id. at 20, 26. Campbell

and May were holding hands. Id. at 23. Campbell and May walked to the

1 See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 2 of 5

paint aisle, and Campbell then walked to the cash register to pull Byers away

from the register while May took Yeti cups and then left the store. Id. at 20. [3] The State charged Campbell with theft as a Class A misdemeanor. Appellant’s

App. Vol. II at 3, 10. At the end of the bench trial, the trial court found

Campbell guilty as charged and sentenced her to one year in the Hamilton

County Jail, suspended to probation. Tr. Vol. 2 at 42-43. Campbell now

appeals.

Discussion and Decision [4] Campbell argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that she was an

accomplice in helping May commit theft as a Class A misdemeanor. When we

review the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge

the credibility of the witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind.

2005). Rather, we will affirm a conviction if we find that any reasonable

factfinder could find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when

considering all the facts and inferences that favor the conviction. Bailey v. State,

907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). The evidence need not exclude every

reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but it must support a reasonable inference

of guilt to support the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007). [5] “A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over

property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part

of its value or use, commits theft, a Class A misdemeanor.” Ind. Code § 35-43-

4-2(a). An accomplice is any person who knowingly or intentionally aids,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 3 of 5

induces, or causes another to commit an offense. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4.

Factors to determine whether a person is an accomplice include (1) presence at

the scene of the crime; (2) companionship with another at the scene of the

crime; (3) failure to oppose the commission of the crime; and (4) course of

conduct before, during, and after the crime. Castillo v. State, 974 N.E.2d 458,

466 (Ind. 2012). The evidence need not show that the individual participated in

every element of the crime. Hart, 30 N.E.3d 1283, 1288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

Rather,

[t]here must be evidence [of] affirmative conduct, either in the form of acts or words, from which an inference of a common design or purpose to effect the commission of a crime may be reasonably drawn. Each participant must knowingly or intentionally associate himself with the criminal venture, participate in it, and try to make it succeed. That said, the State need not show that [the accomplice] was a party to the preconceived scheme; it must merely demonstrate concerted action or participation in an illegal act.

Griffin v. State, 16 N.E.3d 997, 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (internal citations

omitted). [6] Here, the circumstantial evidence allowed the trial court to reasonably infer that

Campbell acted as an accomplice to May in his theft of merchandise from the

store. First, it is undisputed that Campbell was at the scene of the crime with

May. Tr. Vol. 2 at 12; Castillo, 974 N.E.2d at 466. Second, Campbell and May

were companions at the scene, evinced by their entry into the store while

holding hands. Tr. Vol. 2 at 20; Castillo, 974 N.E.2d at 466. The only time they

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 4 of 5

were not together was when Campbell asked Byers to accompany her to the

paint aisle of the store while May went to the front of the store and took the

items. Tr. Vol. 2 at 20, 35. Third, May and Campbell acted in concert.

Castillo, 974 N.E.2d at 466. After they separated inside the store, Campbell

distracted Byers by luring her into the paint aisle. Tr. Vol. 2 at 12, 20. Once

Byers was distracted, May went to the front of the store and concealed

merchandise in his jacket. Id. at 20. After May concealed the merchandise, he

exited the store, and Campbell left soon after without purchasing anything. Id.

at 13, 30. These facts make clear that Campbell had the requisite mens rea to be

convicted as an accomplice to Class A misdemeanor theft. See I.C. 35-41-2-4

(“A person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another

person to commit an offense commits that offense[.]”). [7] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 5 of 5