Opinion
24A-CR-1365
12-30-2024
Joseph E. Hoeksema, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Justin R. Wall Wall Legal Services Huntington, Indiana. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Megan M. Smith Deputy Attorney General 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Wabash Superior Court The Honorable Benjamin D.R. Vanderpool, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 85D01-2211-F6-1343.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Justin R. Wall Wall Legal Services Huntington, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Megan M. Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Bailey and Bradford, Judges concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Foley, Judge.
[¶1] Joseph E. Hoeksema ("Hoeksema") was convicted after a jury trial of criminal trespass as a Class A misdemeanor, criminal mischief as a Class B misdemeanor, and criminal conversion as a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of 365 days with 363 days suspended to probation. Hoeksema appeals his convictions, raising the following issue for our review: whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his convictions. We affirm.
I.C. § 35-43-1-2(a).
I.C. § 35-43-4-3(a).
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] Ronald Cramer ("Cramer") owns 4.3 acres of mostly wooded property in La Fontaine, Indiana. Hoeksema lived on one acre of land abutting Cramer's property to the east. Between 2020 and 2022, there were multiple interactions between Cramer and Hoeksema regarding access to Cramer's property. Cramer repeatedly told Hoeksema that he was not permitted on Cramer's property. On June 1, 2020, Cramer contacted police and reported Hoeksema for trespassing on Cramer's property. An officer issued a no-trespass warning to Hoeksema, which Hoeksema acknowledged, and told Hoeksema that "he was not to be on [Cramer's] property." Tr. Vol. 2 p. 126. On September 7, 2020, Cramer again told Hoeksema to "stay off [his] property and quit cutting down trees." Id. at 101. That same day, Cramer reported to police that Hoeksema had been on his property, and the same officer issued another no-trespass warning to Hoeksema.
[¶3] Between May 2021 and April 2022, Cramer was living in Marion while remodeling his La Fontaine house but returned to his La Fontaine property about once per week. During this period, on May 5, 2021, officers responding to a noise complaint found Hoeksema cutting trees behind his house. When questioned, Hoeksema claimed Norman Scott had given him permission to cut the trees. On April 30, 2022, Cramer reported to police that Hoeksema had trespassed on his property. When officers spoke with Hoeksema, he admitted cutting down trees and showed them where he had cut and removed trees, stating he did not remove any trees "past the power lines." Id. at 152. The officers' examination of the property revealed that over 200 trees, including walnut, cherry, and ash trees, had been cut and removed from Cramer's property, which was located past the power lines.
[¶4] On November 2, 2022, the State charged Hoeksema with Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief, and Level 6 felony theft. On April 17, 2024, the State amended the criminal mischief charge to a Class B misdemeanor and the theft charge to criminal conversion as a Class A misdemeanor. A jury trial was held on April 23 and 24, 2024. At trial, Cramer testified he never gave Hoeksema permission to cut down trees or granted him an easement onto his property. Hoeksema testified that he had helped Cramer with yard work, including clearing brush and trees. He claimed Cramer had given him permission to be on the property and remove trees. Hoeksema stated he did not sell or profit from the timber. He explained his earlier statement to police about having Norm Scott's permission as a "slip of the tongue." Tr. Vol. 2 p. 236.
[¶5] At the conclusion of the jury trial, Hoeksema was found guilty of all three charges. The trial court sentenced Hoeksema to an aggregate term of 365 days with 363 days suspended to probation and ordered him to pay restitution to Cramer. Hoeksema now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[¶6] Hoeksema argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions. When there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, "[w]e neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility." Gibson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 204, 210 (Ind. 2016), cert. denied. Instead, we consider only that evidence most favorable to the judgment together with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. "We will affirm the judgment if it is supported by substantial evidence of probative value even if there is some conflict in that evidence." Id. Further, "[w]e will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).
[¶7] In order to convict Hoeksema of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, the State was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally entered Cramer's property without having a contractual interest in the property and after having been denied entry by Cramer or Cramer's agent. Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2(b)(1). In order to convict Hoeksema of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, the State was required to prove that he recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damaged or defaced Cramer's property without Cramer's consent. I.C. § 35-43-1-2(a). In order to convict Hoeksema of Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion, the State was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over Cramer's property. I.C. § 35-43-4-3(a).
[¶8] The evidence most favorable to the verdict established that, over the span of approximately one year, Hoeksema entered onto the property of Cramer and cut down over 200 trees located on Cramer's property. Hoeksema did not have a contractual interest in the property, nor did he have permission from Cramer to enter the property or cut down the trees. Hoeksema had been told by both Cramer and the police to stay off of Cramer's property and had been issued two no-trespass warnings from the police. Further, Cramer testified that he never gave Hoeksema consent to cut down the trees.
[¶9] Hoeksema argues that we should disregard Cramer's testimony because the testimony was incredibly dubious. The incredible dubiosity rule recognizes that, in very rare cases, a witness's credibility is so untrustworthy and lacking as to justify reversal on appeal. Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 755 (Ind. 2015). However, the Indiana Supreme Court has explained that we should only invoke this doctrine "where a sole witness presents inherently contradictory testimony which is equivocal or the result of coercion and there is a complete lack of circumstantial evidence of the appellant's guilt." Id. (emphases in original). This standard is not an impossible burden to meet, but it is a difficult one, and the testimony must be such that no reasonable person could believe it. Id. at 756.
[¶10] Hoeksema argues that Cramer's testimony that Hoeksema did not have consent to enter Cramer's property and to cut down the trees was inherently improbable when considering the facts surrounding Hoeksema's actions. Specifically, Hoeksema asserts that Cramer was the sole supporting witness who could testify whether Cramer had given permission for Hoeksema to enter the property and remove the trees and that it was inherently improbable that someone could remove such a large number of trees without the property owner being aware and without Hoeksema having permission to do so. Further, Hoeksema maintains that it was inherently improbable for someone in his physical condition to have undertaken such strenuous activity for the purpose of hurting Cramer and for Hoeksema to have undertaken such activities when he received no financial gain or benefit from doing so.
[¶11] We first note that Cramer was not the sole witness to testify that Hoeksema was not given permission or consent to enter Cramer's property and cut down trees. Both Cramer and a police officer testified that Hoeksema was told to stay off of Cramer's property, and the police had twice issued a no-trespass warning to Hoeksema, telling him "he was not to be on [Cramer's] property." Tr. Vol. 2 p. 126. This testimony was supported by the evidence demonstrating that Hoeksema only cut down the trees on Cramer's property during the time Cramer was staying at another residence due to renovations on the property at issue. Further, Cramer's testimony was not inherently improbable or contradictory. Cramer consistently testified that he did not give Hoeksema permission or consent to be on his property or to cut down any trees. On one occasion, when the police came to Hoeksema's property to investigate a noise complaint, the officers discovered Hoeksema cutting trees, and he told the officers that Norm Scott had given him permission to cut the trees. At trial, he testified that Cramer had given him permission to do so. When asked why he did not tell the officers that Cramer had given him permission to cut the trees, Hoeksema's explanation was a "slip of the tongue." Id. at 236. We do not find that Cramer's testimony was inherently improbable or equivocal. Hoeksema's arguments are merely requests for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Gibson, 51 N.E.3d at 210.
[¶12] The evidence presented at trial revealed that Hoeksema entered Cramer's property after being told not to by both Cramer and the police, and while on the property, he intentionally cut down and destroyed Cramer's trees, which he did covertly, indicating he did not have permission to do so. We therefore decline to disregard Cramer's testimony and conclude that the incredible dubiosity rule does not apply in this case. The State presented sufficient evidence to support Hoeksema's convictions.
[¶13] Affirmed.
Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur.