MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Oct 26 2015, 9:07 am
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
Paul J. Podlejski Gregory F. Zoeller
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Curtis Daugherty, October 26, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
48A02-1502-CR-121
v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela G. Warner
Appellee-Plaintiff. Sims, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
48C01-1309-FD-1832
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1502-CR-121 | October 26, 2015 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Curtis Daugherty appeals his conviction for receiving stolen property, as a Class
D felony, following a jury trial. Daugherty raises two issues for our review,
which we consolidate and restate as whether the State presented sufficient
evidence to support his conviction.1 We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On August 21, 2013, Robert Trotter, the manager of a Napa Auto Parts store in
Anderson, left work at 6:00 p.m. and noticed nothing unusual. However, when
he returned the next morning at 8:00 a.m., he noticed it was “awful[ly] warm”
inside the store. Tr. at 202. Trotter inspected the store’s air conditioning unit
and noticed that several metal pieces had been removed, apparently with a
“hacksaw” or a similar tool, which prevented the air conditioning unit from
functioning. Id. at 303. Trotter contacted John Carey, the owner of the
building, to report the matter.
[3] Carey “immediately went over to Phillips Iron and Metal [(‘Phillips’)],” a metal
recycling plant four blocks from the store, “because the exact same scenario had
happened before.” Id. at 228. At Phillips, Carey spoke with James Zickefoose.
Zickefoose informed Carey that someone had indeed sold the missing metal
1
Daugherty styles one of his issues as whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his
conviction and styles his second issue as whether the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a directed
verdict. Though styled as two issues, Daugherty’s arguments, and our resolution of them, are substantively
identical.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1502-CR-121 | October 26, 2015 Page 2 of 6
pieces there earlier that morning. Zickefoose recognized the pieces from photos
Carey had presented based on the angle of the cut. Zickefoose remembered the
man who had sold the metal pieces to Phillips. Along with some physical
descriptions, Zickefoose remembered his name was “Curt,” that he was driving
a Chevrolet Blazer with “Just Married” written on the back window and sides,
and that he was interested in buying some aluminum rims from Phillips. When
Zickefoose later spoke to investigating officers, he informed them that Curt
suggested he would be back to buy the rims. The officers told Zickefoose to call
them if he returned.
[4] Meanwhile, Carey took the stolen metal pieces back to his building. When he
and Trotter compared the cuts on the pieces to the air conditioning unit, they
found that the pieces “perfectly fit” the unit. Id. at 210.
[5] Two days later, Daugherty, who lived in “close proximity” to the store and
Phillips, went to Phillips to purchase the rims. Id. at 325. Zickefoose
recognized him as the same person who had sold the stolen metal pieces two
days prior, and Daugherty arrived at Phillips in the same Blazer with the same
“Just Married” writing on it. See id. at 306. Zickefoose contacted officers with
the Anderson Police Department, who arrived and arrested Daugherty.
[6] The State charged Daugherty with receiving stolen property, as a Class D
felony. Following the close of the State’s case-in-chief at the ensuing jury trial,
Daugherty moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
Daugherty, his wife, and his step-daughter then testified in his defense. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1502-CR-121 | October 26, 2015 Page 3 of 6
jury found him guilty, and the trial court entered its judgment of conviction and
sentence accordingly. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Daugherty asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support
his conviction for receiving stolen property, as a Class D felony. When
reviewing a claim of sufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the
evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Jones v. State, 783 N.E.2d
1132, 1139 (Ind. 2003). We look only to the probative evidence supporting the
judgment and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence
to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could conclude the defendant
was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. If there is substantial evidence of
probative value to support the conviction, it will not be set aside. Id.
[8] To convict Daugherty of receiving stolen property, as a Class D felony, the
State was required to show that Daugherty knowingly or intentionally
“receive[d], retain[ed], or dispose[d] of the property of another person that
ha[d] been the subject of theft.” Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(b) (2012). As our
supreme court has explained:
the mere unexplained possession of recently stolen property
standing alone does not automatically support a conviction for
[receiving stolen property]. Rather, such possession is to be considered
along with the other evidence in a case, such as how recent or distant in
time was the possession from the moment the item was stolen, and what
are the circumstances of the possession (say, possessing right next door as
opposed to many miles away). In essence, the fact of possession and
all the surrounding evidence about the possession must be
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1502-CR-121 | October 26, 2015 Page 4 of 6
assessed to determine whether any rational juror could find the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fortson v. State, 919 N.E.2d 1136, 1143 (Ind. 2010) (emphasis added); see also
Barnett v. State, 834 N.E.2d 169, 172 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“Possession of
recently stolen property when joined with . . . an unusual manner of acquisition
may be sufficient evidence of knowledge that the property was stolen.”).
[9] Here, Daugherty asserts that the State’s evidence demonstrated only that he had
possession of the stolen metal pieces. Daugherty is incorrect. The State’s
evidence demonstrated that Daugherty’s possession of the stolen items was
close in time to the moment they were stolen: the items were stolen from the
store sometime between 6:00 p.m. on August 21, 2013, and 8:00 a.m. on
August 22, 2013, and Zickefoose witnessed Daugherty in possession of the
items that same morning when Daugherty sold them to Phillips. Also,
Daugherty was in close physical proximity to both the store and Phillips during
the time in question, and he lived “not far” from both locations. Tr. at 325.
Phillips was only four blocks from the Napa store. Moreover, we agree with
the State that the manner in which the metal pieces had been removed from the
store’s air conditioning unit—with a hacksaw or similar tool—“carried
indications of damage and unusual acquisition.” Appellee’s Br. at 5. In sum,
the State presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder
could conclude that Daugherty knowingly received, retained, or disposed of the
property of another that had been the subject of theft. Accordingly, we affirm
his conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1502-CR-121 | October 26, 2015 Page 5 of 6
[10] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1502-CR-121 | October 26, 2015 Page 6 of 6