Opinion
24A-CR-464
11-22-2024
Christopher Phillip Smith, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Scott H. Duerring Duerring Law Offices South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General, Kelly A. Loy Assistant Section Chief Criminal Appeals 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 St. Joseph Superior Court The Honorable Elizabeth C. Hurley, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D08-2007-F6-648
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Scott H. Duerring Duerring Law Offices South Bend, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General, Kelly A. Loy Assistant Section Chief Criminal Appeals Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Felix, Judge
Statement of the Case
[¶1] Christopher Smith was convicted of pointing a firearm, carrying a handgun without a license, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. At trial, the State presented evidence of Smith's prior conviction for battery with a deadly weapon to demonstrate that he was a serious violent felon. Smith now appeals and presents one issue for our review: Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Smith's conviction for possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.
[¶2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] On July 6, 2020, Smith drove to his sister's house in South Bend, Indiana, pulled into her driveway, and began arguing with family members in her front yard. Smith then left the house before returning shortly thereafter, parking his car across the street from the house. There, Smith pulled out a firearm and pointed it at the people in his sister's front yard. The individuals in the front yard ran inside the house, and Smith's sister called law enforcement.
[¶4] Law enforcement officers responded to the call and began questioning Smith's sister in her back yard. During questioning, Smith again drove up to his sister's house and fired five to seven gunshots into the air from his vehicle. Law enforcement officers pursued Smith and eventually arrested him at his home. On December 10, 2020, the State charged Smith with pointing a firearm as a Level 6 felony, carrying a handgun without a license as a Class A misdemeanor, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a Level 4 felony.
[¶5] The trial court held a bench trial on November 16, 2023. To prove that Smith was a serious violent felon, the State presented evidence of Smith's 2008 conviction for battery with a deadly weapon as a Class C felony. The State provided a copy of the judgment in the 2008 cause as well as a fingerprint card taken after Smith's arrest in this cause. Lacie Klosinski, a latent fingerprint examiner with the South Bend Police Department, testified about the two sets of fingerprint cards, and the following exchange occurred:
Q. How many sets of fingerprints did you review?
A. Two.
Q. Were they for the same person or different people?
A. The same person.
Q. I'm approaching with what I've premarked as State's Exhibit 22 and 23. What are we looking at?
A. These are the known prints for a Christopher Phillip Smith. One is for the date of July 6th, 2020, and the other is June 18th of 2008.
Q. And you mentioned earlier that you are the custodian for all of the fingerprint and palm prints in St. Joseph County?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you pull these in conjunction with state's cases 71D08-2007-F6-000648 and 71D08-0806-FB-000078?
A. I believe so. I work typically on arrest dates.Tr. Vol. II at 80. Klosinski also testified that the cards were fair and accurate representations of the fingerprints and that an overall comparison of the prints confirmed that they were from the same person. The trial court found Smith guilty of pointing a firearm, carrying a handgun without a license, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support Smith's Conviction
[¶6] Smith argues that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to support his conviction for possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Our Supreme Court has explained our standard of review for such a claim as follows:
Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims trigger a deferential standard of review in which we "neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the [factfinder]." Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018). A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if "there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the smith guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015).
In conducting that review, we consider only the evidence that supports the jury's determination, not evidence that might undermine it. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024).Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024).
[¶7] In order to convict Smith of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon under Indiana Code section 35-47-4-5, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith "knowingly or intentionally possess[ed] a firearm" after having been previously convicted of a serious violent felony. Under this statute, serious violent felonies include battery as a "Class A felony, Class B felony, or Class C felony, for a crime committed before July 1, 2014." Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5(b)(4)(A) (2020). Smith argues that the State failed to prove he was a serious violent felon because the State failed to show he was the Christopher Smith who committed the 2008 battery with a deadly weapon.
[¶8] We have recently described how the State must prove a prior conviction to demonstrate the defendant is a serious violent felon:
In regard to the use of documents to establish the existence of prior convictions we have stated: Certified copies of judgments or commitments containing a defendant's name or a similar name may be introduced to prove the commission of prior felonies. Schlomer v. State, 580 N.E.2d 950, 958 (Ind. 1991) (citing Andrews v. State, 536 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. 1989)). While there must be supporting evidence to identify the defendant as the person named in the documents, the evidence may be circumstantial. Id.; see also Coker v. State, 455 N.E.2d 319, 322 (Ind. 1983). If the evidence yields logical and reasonable inferences from which the
finder of fact may determine beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a defendant who was convicted of the prior felony, then a sufficient connection has been shown. Pointer v. State, 499 N.E.2d 1087, 1089 (Ind. 1986)[;] Hernandez v. State, 716 N.E.2d 948, 953 (Ind. 1999).Woodward v. State, 187 N.E.3d 311, 320-21 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022) (emphasis and alteration in original) (quoting Tyson v. State, 766 N.E.2d 715, 718 (Ind. 2002)), reh'g denied.
[¶9] Here, the State presented a copy of a 2008 judgement showing that Christopher Smith pled guilty to battery with a deadly weapon. Additionally, the State offered and the trial court admitted into evidence without objection two sets of fingerprint cards: (1) fingerprints taken from a Christopher Smith related to the 2008 battery with a deadly weapon cause and (2) fingerprints taken from Christopher Smith in the present matter.
[¶10] Klosinski testified regarding the comparison of these two cards. Smith points us to Klosinski's testimony where she was asked if she had pulled the cards in conjunction with the relevant cause numbers and she replied: "I believe so. I work typically on arrest dates." Tr. Vol. II at 80. Smith claims this response "[c]learly shows that [Klosinski] is unfamiliar with linking the fingerprint cards to court cause numbers" and thus the State failed to prove Smith's prior conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant's Br. at 9. However, Smith's claim ignores that Klosinski testified that, in her 18 years of working with fingerprints, she had conducted more than 10,000 fingerprint comparisons and had testified in court approximately 40 times. Further, Klosinski testified that the cards were fair and accurate representations of the fingerprints presented, the fingerprint cards represented "the same person's prints," and that person was Smith. Tr. Vol. II at 81. Smith's interpretation of Klosinski's testimony is merely a request for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we will not do, see Hancz-Barron, 235 N.E.3d at 1244 (quoting Brantley, 91 N.E.3d at 570). While Klosinski's testimony could have been clearer, closing argument was the appropriate place to make that argument. On appeal, based on our standard of review, we cannot conclude there is insufficient evidence linking Smith to the 2008 felony conviction. Thus, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to prove Smith's prior conviction and convict him of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.
[¶11] Affirmed.
Pyle, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.