Opinion
24A-CR-1388
09-30-2024
Andrea Sharon Evans, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Thomas P. Keller South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Michelle Kazmierczak Deputy Attorney General Madison Crawford Certified Legal Intern Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sanford, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D03-2302-F3-16
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Thomas P. Keller South Bend, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Michelle Kazmierczak Deputy Attorney General Madison Crawford Certified Legal Intern Indianapolis, Indiana
Chief Judge Altice and Judge Vaidik concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Crone, Judge.
Case Summary
[¶1] Following a bench trial, the court found Andrea Sharon Evans guilty of level 3 felony robbery. On appeal, Evans argues that the State failed to prove that any property was taken from the victim. We disagree and therefore affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] Around noon on February 26, 2023, Jazzmen Medina entered a restaurant in South Bend to buy a beverage. A surveillance camera video shows Medina approaching the beverage counter with her wallet in her left hand and taking one bill out of the wallet with her right hand. State's Ex. 1A at 00:30. Two seconds later, Medina is attacked from behind by Evans and her two juvenile daughters, who had parked in front of Medina's vehicle and followed her into the restaurant. Evans and Medina had dated the same man, which "caused some problems between the two of [them.]" Tr. Vol. 2 at 33. The video shows Evans grabbing Medina and spinning her around, and Medina placing the bill on a nearby table with her right hand. State's Ex. 1A at 00:34. Two seconds later, near the conclusion of this video, the combatants disappear from view, with the bill remaining on the table. Id. at 00:36.
[¶3] Video from a second surveillance camera shows the fight spilling into the other side of the restaurant. State's Ex. 2A at 00:17. Evans and her daughters pummel and kick Medina as she lies on the ground, and the restaurant owner tries to break up the brawl. The video shows one of Evans's daughters opening Medina's wallet; she does not take anything out of the wallet and drops it on the floor. Id. at 01:27-01:35.
[¶4] A restaurant employee announced that "they were going to call the cops." Tr. Vol. 2 at 30. Evans and her daughters exited via the beverage-counter side of the restaurant and drove away. Officer Jeffrey Cummins arrived and spoke with Medina, who said that $500 had been taken.
No video was introduced to show their departure through this side of the restaurant.
[¶5] Officer Cummins broadcast a description of Evans's vehicle and the amount of money that Medina had reported stolen. Sergeant Anthony Dawson located Evans's vehicle within "[m]inutes." Id. at 11. He "went to stop" the vehicle, but it was "already pulled over" within a mile of the restaurant when he approached it. Id. at 23. Sergeant Dawson detained Evans and her daughters and searched the vehicle "for a currency amount that might have matched what had been taken[,]" but he did not find any currency "of note[.]" Id. at 24. A female officer searched Evans and her daughters, and no money "[of] that dollar amount[,]" i.e., $500, was found on any of them. Id.
[¶6] The State alleged that Evans aided, induced, or caused robbery resulting in bodily injury, a level 3 felony, by knowingly or intentionally taking "US currency" from Medina or her presence by putting Medina in fear, "said act resulting in bodily injury, to wit: pain and bleeding scratches and contusions to ... Medina." Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 14. The State also alleged that Evans committed class A misdemeanor battery against Medina.
[¶7] A bench trial was held in January 2024. Both Officer Cummins and Sergeant Dawson testified, and the above-mentioned videos were admitted into evidence. When asked if he was "aware of any dollar amount" that was found on Evans and her daughters, Sergeant Dawson replied, "I'm not sure if they had a dollar bill or some loose change in their pocket but nothing to the crime." Tr. Vol. 2 at 24. Medina testified that "about five to seven hundred dollars" in tips from her job as a restaurant server was missing from her wallet after the attack and that no money "was ever recovered[.]" Id. at 31, 39. Evans admitted to battering Medina but claimed that neither she nor her daughters took any money. The trial court took the matter under advisement.
[¶8] Two days later, the trial court issued an order in which it found Evans guilty of level 3 felony robbery and dismissed the battery charge as an included offense.
The court made extensive factual findings that read in pertinent part as follows:
While the Court is convinced that money was taken, the Court is not convinced that Medina lost $500-$700 dollars. The video evidence clearly shows Medina pulling out and holding a bill, she testified that all her personal items except her money were still in the restaurant after the fight. The video shows one of the attackers picking up Medina's wallet [and] opening it, but not removing any money. Minutes after the fight ends the three are apprehended and no money representing the amount taken is found. Officer Dawson testified that he was not sure if it was a bill or change that was recovered; unfortunately, any money found did not register because the officer was looking for an
amount larger than that. Clearly Medina had a bill in hand, after her attack that bill was gone, it is reasonable to infer that one of the attackers took the bill.Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 51-52 (footnote omitted). The trial court sentenced Evans to three years of probation. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[¶9] On appeal, Evans again concedes that she battered Medina, but she asserts that the State failed to establish that any money was taken and thus failed to establish that she committed robbery, either personally or as an accomplice."When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility; rather, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the judgment." Hudson v. State, 20 N.E.3d 900, 903 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014). "This review respects the factfinder's exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). "[A] defendant may be convicted on wholly circumstantial evidence." Ogle v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1146, 1150 (Ind. 1998). It is "not necessary that the evidence 'overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.'" Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007) (quoting Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind. 1995)). "We must affirm if a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence presented." Hudson, 20 N.E.3d at 903 .
Evans concedes that the evidence established that she acted in concert with her daughters.
[¶10] As charged here, robbery is the knowing or intentional taking of property from another person or the presence of another person by putting that person in fear. Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(a)(2). The evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment establishes that Medina removed a piece of paper currency from her wallet just before Evans and her daughters attacked her. Medina managed to place the bill on a nearby table before she was dragged into another part of the restaurant and battered. After a restaurant employee announced that the police would be called, Evans and her daughters halted their attack and exited the restaurant past the table on which Medina had placed the bill. Medina testified that no money "was ever recovered[.]" Tr. Vol. 2 at 39. From this evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, a reasonable trier of fact could find that either Evans or one of her daughters took the bill from the table as they left the restaurant. The fact that no money was later found on their persons is inconsequential, because the robbery was complete when the money was taken. Lacy v. State, 375 N.E.2d 1133, 1134 (Ind.Ct.App. 1978). Therefore, we affirm Evans's robbery conviction.
[¶11] Affirmed.
Altice, C.J., and Vaidik, J., concur.