MEMORANDUM DECISION
Mar 26 2015, 6:20 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. O’Connor Gregory F. Zoeller
O’Connor & Auersch Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Karl M. Scharnberg
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Antwain Bateman,1 March 26, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1407-CR-483
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, Lower Court Cause No.
49G05-1312-FC-78967
Appellee-Plaintiff
The Honorable Grant W. Hawkins,
Judge
Pyle, Judge
1
Defense counsel spells the appellant’s name as “Batemon” in his brief but “Bateman” on the Appellant’s
Appendix. Likewise, the appellant’s name is spelled inconsistently throughout the record. Because his name
is spelled “Bateman” on our online docket, that is how we will spell his name here.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-483| March 26, 2015 Page 1 of 11
Statement of the Case
[1] Appellant/Defendant, Antwain Bateman (“Bateman”), appeals his convictions
for Class C felony forgery2 and Class D felony theft3 for purchasing, along with
three other defendants, items at a Target store using counterfeit currency. On
appeal, Bateman argues that the State did not produce sufficient evidence to
prove that he committed forgery because the State did not prove that he gave,
or intended to give, counterfeit money to his co-defendant, who in turn gave the
money to the Target cashier. As an extension of the first issue, he also argues
that if the State did not prove that he intended to give counterfeit money to
Target, the State did not prove that he committed theft. We conclude that
Bateman’s arguments are requests that we reweigh the evidence, which we will
not do. Instead, we find that the State did produce sufficient evidence to
support both of his convictions.
We affirm.
Issue
Whether the State produced sufficient evidence to prove that Bateman
committed Class C felony forgery and Class D felony theft.
2
IND. CODE § 35-43-5-2(b)(4). We note that, effective July 1, 2014, a new version of this statute was enacted
and Bateman’s offense would now qualify as a Level 6 felony. However, because Bateman committed his
offense in 2013, we will apply the statute in effect at that time.
3
I.C. § 35-43-4-2(a). We note that, effective July 1, 2014, a new version of this statute was also enacted, and
Bateman’s offense would now qualify as a Level 6 felony. Because Bateman committed his offense in 2013,
we will apply the statute in effect at that time.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-483| March 26, 2015 Page 2 of 11
Facts
[2] The Glendale Target store in Indianapolis receives roughly $2,000 in counterfeit
money every month. If the amount of counterfeit money in a single transaction
is lower than $50 or $100, Target will generally let the amount pass, but the
store will call and file a report with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department (“IMPD”) if the amount is over $200. In December of 2013, a lot
of the “high dollar items” in the electronics department, especially Beats by Dre
headphones, were being stolen, so the store was monitoring the department.
(Tr. 28).
[3] On December 11, 2013, Bateman and three other men, D’Andre Driver
(“Driver”), Stephen Wilbert (“Wilbert”), and Ryan Mahone (“Mahone”),
drove together to the Glendale Target store. Bateman and Driver entered the
store together at 7:00 p.m., separately from Wilbert and Mahone. While they
were in the store, Target’s Senior Assets Protection Specialist David Casiano
(“Casiano”) was watching the surveillance video feed of the Target electronics
department. His attention was drawn to Bateman and Driver when they
selected Beats by Dre Headphones off of the “front end cap[s]” of the aisle and
then “quickly” selected a television and Xbox 360. (Tr. 29).
[4] After observing this conduct, Casiano went to the sales floor to observe
Bateman and Driver in person. He stood about twenty to thirty feet away from
them as they reached the cashier to checkout, and he saw Bateman pull a wallet
out of his pocket and hand “some, a couple, a few hundred” dollar bills from
his wallet to Driver, who combined the money with his own cash. (Tr. 34).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-483| March 26, 2015 Page 3 of 11
Driver then handed the money to the cashier, who placed it in the farthest right
till of the register. Casiano later testified that this till is reserved for bills of the
highest denominations.
[5] When Bateman and Driver left the store, Casiano went to the cashier’s register
and asked to look at the money they had given the cashier. He noticed
immediately that “[a]bout half” of the bills were duplicated and had matching
serial numbers. (Tr. 34). There were nine counterfeit one hundred dollar bills
and a genuine fifty dollar bill underneath the pile of one hundred dollar bills.
There were also genuine bills of other denominations in the drawer and one
genuine hundred dollar bill. Casiano retrieved the counterfeit cash from the
drawer and a printout of Bateman and Driver’s receipt, which totaled $932. He
did not leave any hundred dollar bills in the drawer. He then contacted law
enforcement to file a police report. However, while he was on the phone with
the police, he noticed that Bateman and Driver were still standing outside of the
Target store, so the IMPD dispatched police officers to the scene.
[6] Two or three minutes after Bateman and Driver left the store, Casiano, who
was still standing near the cash registers, noticed Mahone and Wilbert approach
the cash register that Bateman and Driver had used with a shopping cart full of
similar electronic items.4 At the register, Wilbert began putting the
merchandise on the conveyor belt, and Mahone walked outside. The cashier
4
He later reviewed a surveillance video and observed that Mahone and Wilbert had entered the Target right
after Bateman and Driver and had also spent only ten minutes in the store shopping.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-483| March 26, 2015 Page 4 of 11
scanned the merchandise, but Wilbert did not pay. Instead, he walked outside
and met Mahone, Bateman, and Driver at the vehicle. Mahone handed
something to Wilbert, and Wilbert put it in his pocket. Casiano was not close
enough to identify what the item was, but Wilbert then walked back inside the
store and handed the cashier money from the same pocket where Wilbert had
placed the item or items Mahone had given him.
[7] Within thirty seconds of Mahone and Wilbert’s exit from the store, Casiano
checked the money drawer of the cash register they had used and found four
new counterfeit one hundred dollar bills. The bills had identifying marks,
including a mark on Benjamin Franklin’s face “that no other bill[s] ha[ve].”
(Tr. 75). They also had a “chemical smell” that was “a bit unusual.” (Tr. 75).
[8] Meanwhile, by the time that Wilbert exited the store, Officer Curt Collins
(“Officer Collins”) from the IMPD was on the scene. He detained the four men
and called the United States Secret Service. Special Agent Darren Brock
(“Special Agent Brock”) responded to Officer Collins’ call and came to Target
to interview the four men. At the conclusion of his interviews, Officer Collins
arrested the four of them and searched them. He discovered one more
counterfeit bill on Bateman, two more counterfeit bills on Wilbert, and one
more counterfeit bill on Driver.5
5
There is some indication in the record that Officer Collins may have found two, rather than one, counterfeit
bills on Bateman.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-483| March 26, 2015 Page 5 of 11
[9] Subsequently, on December 16, 2013, the State charged Bateman with Class C
felony forgery, Class D felony theft, and Class D felony counterfeiting. The
trial court held a bench trial for all four co-defendants on May 29, 2014. At
trial, Special Agent Brock testified to common behaviors of counterfeiters. He
noted that counterfeiters tend not to spend much time shopping or comparing
prices for expensive purchases. In addition, counterfeiters that work in a group
check out using the same cash register to minimize the number of cashiers who
might potentially identify counterfeit currency. With respect to the instant case,
Special Agent Brock explained that the identifying mark on Benjamin
Franklin’s face on all of the bills was a mark that had begun appearing on
counterfeit currency throughout Indiana in the middle of November 2013. He
also noted that the seventeen counterfeit bills recovered from the defendants did
not have the proper color shifting ink on a portion of the bills and that the
“paper texture [was] a bit off.” (Tr. 142). Similarly, Casiano testified that the
bills had a chemical smell that was “a bit unusual.” (Tr. 75).
[10] Also at trial, Bateman testified that the reason he had handed money to Driver
while checking out was that Driver owed him money, so the two of them
agreed to split the price of a toy that Bateman had picked out. According to
Bateman, he gave Driver three twenty dollar bills to pay for his half of the cost
of the toy. He could not remember which toy they had agreed to split but said
that it was not Legos. Driver testified that the toy was a “girlie toy” for
Bateman’s daughter. (Tr. 199).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-483| March 26, 2015 Page 6 of 11
[11] At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found Bateman guilty as charged.
Thereafter, on June 17, 2014, the trial court merged Bateman’s counterfeiting
charge with his forgery charge and sentenced him to four (4) years for the
forgery conviction and 545 days for the theft conviction. It also ordered that
Bateman serve two years in community corrections and suspended the rest of
his sentence to probation. Bateman now appeals.
Decision
[12] On appeal, Bateman argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence to
convict him of Class C felony forgery. He asserts that the State did not prove
that the money he gave to Driver was counterfeit because Casiano did find
some genuine currency in the cash register after he and Driver left. Alternately,
he argues that the State did not prove that he knew the currency was
counterfeit. We will address each of these arguments in turn.
[13] The standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is that this Court
should only reverse a conviction when reasonable persons would not be able to
form inferences as to each material element of the offense. Perez v. State, 872
N.E.2d 208, 212-13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. We do not reweigh
evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. at 213. In addition, we
consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable
inferences stemming from that evidence. Id.
[14] Under INDIANA CODE § 35-43-5-2(b), a person commits forgery if he “with
intent to defraud, makes, utters, or possesses a written instrument in such a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-483| March 26, 2015 Page 7 of 11
manner that it purports to have been made: (1) by another person; (2) at
another time; (3) with different provisions; or (4) by authority of one who did
not give authority.” Here, the State charged that Bateman had “uttered” an
instrument purported to have been made by the United States Department of
Treasury. (App. 20-21). In order to prove that Bateman uttered the bills, the
State was required to show that he “issued, authenticated, transferred,
published, delivered, sold, transmitted, presented, or sold” them. I.C. § 35-
31.5-2-345. This Court has defined uttering as the “offering of a forged
instrument, knowing it to be such, with a representation that it is genuine, and
with intent to defraud.” Miller v. State, 693 N.E.2d 602, 604 (Ind. Ct. App.
1998).
[15] First, Bateman claims that he did not utter a forged instrument because the bills
that he gave Driver were genuine. He argues that he gave driver $60, and
Driver used counterfeit hundred dollar bills to pay for the remainder of the
purchase price of the Target goods. In support of this contention, he notes that
the total cost of the purchases was $932, and there were only nine proven
counterfeit bills in the drawer. Further, Driver tendered $960 in cash to the
cashier.
[16] However, Bateman’s argument is an attempt to reweigh the evidence, which we
will not do. See Perez, 872 N.E.2d at 213. The State produced sufficient
evidence that the bills Bateman gave Driver were counterfeit one hundred
dollar bills. Casiano testified that, after Bateman gave Driver the bills, he saw
the cashier put them in the farthest right till of the cash register, the till reserved
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-483| March 26, 2015 Page 8 of 11
for the highest denominations of money. Although Casiano could not identify
exactly how many bills Bateman had given Driver, he testified that it was
“some, a couple, a few hundred dollar bills.” (Tr. 34). At a minimum,
therefore, Casiano observed Bateman give Driver two hundred dollar bills, so
Bateman cannot claim that he contributed only the genuine one hundred dollar
bill that Casiano found in the till.
[17] Further, there was circumstantial evidence that the bills Bateman gave Driver
were counterfeit. When Officer Collins later searched Bateman, he found that
Bateman had two counterfeit hundred dollar bills remaining in his possession.
In addition, although Bateman claims that he paid Driver sixty dollars to “[go]
half” on a toy for his daughter, the only toy they bought that cost $120 was a
lego set, which Bateman specifically testified was not the toy he meant. (Tr.
188) (emphasis added). The only other item on his receipt that could have
potentially been a toy only cost $71.99, so Bateman would not have been
splitting the cost of the toy with Driver if he paid sixty dollars.
[18] Next, Bateman argues that the State did not produce sufficient evidence that he
knew the money was counterfeit and, therefore, intended to defraud Target.
Specifically, he argues that there was no evidence that he ever handled the
counterfeit money or handled it to the extent that he could have known it was
fake.
[19] Intent to defraud requires a showing that the defendant demonstrated intent to
deceive and thereby work reliance and injury. Wendling v. State, 465 N.E.2d
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-483| March 26, 2015 Page 9 of 11
169, 170 (Ind. 1984). Actual injury is not required; potential injury is enough.
Bocanegra v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1026, 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied.
This intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including the defendant’s
general conduct when presenting an instrument for acceptance. Wendling, 465
N.E.2d at 170.
[20] Because we have already determined that Bateman gave Driver counterfeit bills,
we also conclude that he handled him. As for whether he handled them to the
extent that he could have known they were fake, the trial court made an express
finding stating:
I will say as I sat here about eight feet from [Special] Agent Brock
while he looked at that money, I thought to myself it did look pretty
good from here. But as soon as you touch it, [] Ms. Hall’s argument []
struck me, which is money is money and it does [not] matter how
many hundred dollar bills you see, it’s clearly a different texture and
then all the things, there was no watermark, there was no strip down
the side, there was—to me it was pretty clear. . . . So that’s just the
court’s findings as to touching the money itself. I do [not] necessarily
buy the argument that you would [not] know. So I do find that the
State has met its burden beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Tr. 224). In addition, Casiano and Special Agent Brock testified that the bills
had a chemical smell, and their texture was “a bit off.” (Tr. 142). Again,
Bateman’s argument is a request for us to reweigh this evidence, which we will
not do. See Perez, 872 N.E.2d at 213. Accordingly, we conclude that the State
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-483| March 26, 2015 Page 10 of 11
produced sufficient evidence to prove that Bateman committed Class C felony
forgery.6
Affirmed.
[21] Barnes, J., and May, J., concur.
6
Bateman also challenges his conviction for Class D felony theft. However, the basis for his argument is that
he did not commit forgery and, therefore, did not intend to deprive Target of its property and the value of
that property. Because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support his forgery conviction, we
need not address this second issue.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-483| March 26, 2015 Page 11 of 11