MEMORANDUM DECISION
Jun 17 2015, 9:09 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
Danielle L. Gregory Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Brian Reitz
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
M.B., June 17, 2015
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Cause No.
49A04-1410-JV-485
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
Cause No. 49D09-1404-JD-982
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Petitioner. The Honorable Marilyn Moores,
Judge; The Honorable Geoffrey
Gaither, Magistrate
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-JV-485| June 17, 2015 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] M.B. appeals the trial court’s true finding of robbery and its adjudication of him
as delinquent. We affirm.
Issue
[2] The issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s
adjudication of M.B. as delinquent.
Facts
[3] The evidence most favorable to the judgment is that, on April 23, 2014, several
boys were in a restroom at Northview Middle School changing for intramural
soccer when students M.B. and C.H. entered and asked if any of the boys had a
cell phone they could use. The boys responded that they did not. After
noticing the outline of an iPod in the pocket of one of the boys, J.C., either
M.B. or C.H. threatened J.C., put a fist in his face, reached into his pocket, and
took the iPod. M.B. and C.H. then left the restroom. Officer Freddie Edwards,
the Northview school resource officer, reviewed camera footage of the restroom
area and, “being familiar with students attending Northview,” was able to
identify M.B. and C.H. on the footage. App. p. 16.
[4] C.H., pursuant to an agreement with the State, testified that he told J.C. to
relinquish the iPod and threatened to attack him but that M.B. was the one who
took the iPod from J.C.’s pocket. J.C. testified that M.B. put a fist in his face
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-JV-485| June 17, 2015 Page 2 of 7
and demanded the passcode to his iPod. J.C. testified that it was not M.B. who
took the iPod from his pocket.
[5] J.C. and four other boys who were in the restroom, E.Z., C.B., J.V., and Y.R.,
reviewed the video footage and identified M.B. and C.H. as those involved in
the robbery. Officer Edwards explained that, in the video, M.B. is wearing
“Lebron” tennis shoes and C.H.’s hair is styled in a “twisties” fashion. Tr. pp.
71-73. E.Z. testified that the boy wearing the “Lebron” tennis shoes threatened
J.C., while the boy with the “twisties” hairstyle took the iPod. C.B. testified
that another boy threatened J.C., and the boy with the “twisties” hairstyle took
the iPod. J.V. also testified that the boy wearing “Lebron” tennis shoes
threatened J.C., while the boy with the “twisties” hairstyle took the iPod.
E.Z., C.B., and J.V. all testified that they did not recognize either of the boys
involved in the robbery in court on the day of M.B.’s trial, where M.B. was
present.
[6] At the trial, Y.R. did affirmatively identify M.B. as one of the boys involved in
the robbery. Y.R. testified that M.B. threatened J.C., warning that he and C.H.
would “crack him” if J.C. did not relinquish the iPod. Id. at 53. Y.R. testified
that the boy with the “twisties” hairstyle was the one who ultimately took the
iPod.
[7] M.B. was alleged to have committed one count of robbery as a Class C felony if
committed by an adult and four counts of attempted robbery as a Class C felony
if committed by an adult. The trial court dismissed the attempted robbery
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-JV-485| June 17, 2015 Page 3 of 7
allegations and adjudicated M.B. as delinquent as to the Class C felony robbery
allegation. M.B. now appeals.
Analysis
[8] In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence with respect to juvenile adjudications,
this court neither reweighs the evidence nor assesses the credibility of the
witnesses. M.S. v. State, 889 N.E.2d 900, 901 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.
We examine only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and all
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. K.D. v. State, 754 N.E.2d 36, 38-39
(Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “If there is substantial evidence of probative value to
support the adjudication, it will not be set aside.” D.W. v. State, 903 N.E.2d
966, 968 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.
[9] There is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s adjudication of M.B. as
delinquent. To establish a true finding of robbery as a Class C felony if
committed by an adult, the State was required to show that M.B. knowingly or
intentionally took property from J.C. by using or threatening the use of force.
See Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1. This true finding could be sustained by the
accomplice theory of criminal liability if M.B. knowingly or intentionally aided,
induced, or caused another person to commit the robbery. See I.C. § 35-41-2-4.
[10] M.B. argues that the only relevant testimony is that of C.H. and that the
conflicting testimony of the other witnesses should be disregarded. This
argument is unavailing on appeal, as “it is the function of the trier of fact to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-JV-485| June 17, 2015 Page 4 of 7
resolve conflicts in testimony and to determine the evidence and the credibility
of the witnesses.” K.D. v. State, 754 N.E.2d 36, 39 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
[11] M.B.’s claim that the conflicting witness testimony renders the adjudication
unsustainable on appeal is also unpersuasive. Reevaluating witness testimony
is beyond the purview of this court, as “it is precisely within the domain of the
trier of fact to sift through conflicting accounts of events.” In re J.L.T., 712
N.E.2d 7, 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied. Although suspicion or
possibility alone will not support an adjudication on appeal, the evidence in this
case exceeds mere suspicion: Officer Edwards identified M.B. on the video
footage, and the witnesses confirmed after their review of the footage that M.B.
was involved in the robbery. See R.L.H. v. State, 738 N.E.2d 312, 316-17 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2000).
[12] M.B. contends that the only person who identified him by name was C.B., who
testified against him as part of an agreement with the State. Although the
testimony of the other eyewitnesses may have been more equivocal, C.B.’s
testimony alone is significant, as “[t]he uncorroborated testimony of one
witness may be sufficient by itself to sustain an adjudication of delinquency on
appeal.” D.W. v. State, 903 N.E.2d 966, 968 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). M.B. also
suggests that, because C.B. agreed to testify in exchange for a true finding to a
reduced charge, his testimony was “self-serving” and therefore not credible.
Appellant’s Br. p. 9. This argument amounts to “nothing more than a request
to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses,” and we are
barred from engaging in such assessments on review. J.D.P. v. State, 857
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-JV-485| June 17, 2015 Page 5 of 7
N.E.2d 1000, 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (rejecting appellant’s claim that co-
perpetrator’s testimony was insufficient to affirm adjudication), trans. denied.
[13] M.B. also argues that, because other witness testimony indicates that C.B. was
“the main perpetrator,” there is insufficient evidence to sustain the trial court’s
adjudication. Appellant’s Br. p. 11. Even assuming C.B. was the one who
actually took the iPod, there is substantial evidence that M.B. was an
accomplice. Under accomplice liability, factors considered by the fact-finder
include the alleged perpetrator’s “(1) presence at the scene of the crime; (2)
companionship with another engaged in a crime; (3) failure to oppose the
commission of the crime; and (4) the course of conduct before, during, and after
the occurrence of the crime.” B.K.C. v. State, 781 N.E.2d 1157, 1164 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2003). Although M.B.’s presence in the restroom alone is insufficient to
establish accomplice liability, C.B.’s testimony that he and M.B. committed the
offense together, the fact that Officer Edwards identified C.B. and M.B. in the
video footage, and the testimony of J.C., E.Z., J.V., and Y.R. that all indicate
that M.B. threatened J.C. are substantial evidence that M.B., at a minimum,
aided C.B. in the robbery. See id. at 1165 (affirming accomplice liability where
appellant “did nothing to oppose the commission of the robbery”).
Conclusion
[14] There is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s adjudication of M.B. as
delinquent. We affirm.
[15] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-JV-485| June 17, 2015 Page 6 of 7
[16] Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-JV-485| June 17, 2015 Page 7 of 7