MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), May 20 2016, 9:15 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
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
Lawrence M. Hansen Gregory F. Zoeller
Hansen Law Firm, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Noblesville, Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Bruce McIntyre, May 20, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
29A02-1509-CR-1604
v. Appeal from the
Hamilton Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. Paul A. Felix, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
29C01-1411-FC-9105
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1509-CR-1604 | May 20, 2016 Page 1 of 11
[1] Following a jury trial, Bruce McIntyre was convicted of Class C felony forgery, 1
and he now appeals, asserting that the State failed to present sufficient evidence
to convict him.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Irving Paul (“Paul”) is a “mostly retired” Indiana businessman. Tr. at 110.
However, in his retirement, Paul, along with some partners, started a consulting
business called Paul & Associates Consultants several years ago. Paul &
Associates, among other things, is involved in business development
opportunities, by investing in new or expanding businesses. Sometime after
forming Paul & Associates, Paul met McIntyre through a mutual friend. At
that time, McIntyre was a partner of, or employed by, a company called The
Dane Group (“The Dane Group”), which was involved in real estate
development and provided “short-term financing for companies that were either
new or trying to grow.” Id. at 111. Paul engaged in “five different deals” with
McIntyre. Id. In the course of their relationship, the pattern of the transactions
generally was that McIntyre would present Paul with the available investment
opportunities, Paul would provide some amount of funds to The Dane Group,
and, thereafter, Paul would receive the agreed-upon return on investment.
1
See Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(b)(4). We note that this statute was amended effective July 1, 2014; however, we
will apply the statute in effect at the time that McIntyre committed his offense.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1509-CR-1604 | May 20, 2016 Page 2 of 11
[4] On February 2, 2014, Paul received an email from McIntyre, in which
McIntyre inquired if Paul was interested in investing in a “great opportunity” to
help fund the expansion efforts of a new company called Indian Coffee
Company, located in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. State’s Ex. 2. Indian Coffee
Company at that time only served breakfast and lunch, but the email
represented that “Indian Coffee is expanding” and “will also be opening” an
evening meal dinner service. Id. “The funds will be used to purchase new
equipment,” “perform . . . improvements,” as well as “construction . . . to
extend current seating.” Id. McIntyre asked Paul if he would be interested in
investing $57,300.00 with a ten percent rate of return in a 150-day term.
McIntyre concluded the email with: “Let me know if you’re interested and I
will have the note drafted and signed for you.” Id.
[5] Based on the representations in the email, Paul agreed to loan $50,000.00 in
exchange for the agreement that he would receive $55,000.00 by July 3, 2014,
and, later that week, Paul dropped off a check at the offices of The Dane Group
in the amount of $50,000.00. The Dane Group deposited the check, and the
$50,000.00 in funds were thereafter sent to and received by Indian Coffee
Company, which was owned in equal percentages by one of McIntyre’s
business partners at The Dane Group and by a Bartlesville man named Mark
Spencer (“Spencer”).
[6] On February 18, 2014, McIntyre sent Paul an email that attached a Promissory
Note (“Note”), dated February 3, 2014, relative to the Indian Coffee Company
investment transaction. State’s Ex. 3. McIntyre signed the Note as “Borrower”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1509-CR-1604 | May 20, 2016 Page 3 of 11
and the Note reflected that Spencer signed it as “Personal Guarantor.” State’s
Ex. 1. McIntyre notarized the Note, which affirmed that Spencer appeared
before him, “acknowledged the execution of the foregoing” Note, and “stated
that any representations therein are true.” Appellant’s App. at 106. Like the
Note, the notarization was dated February 3, 2014. McIntyre told Paul in his
February 18 email, “I dropped the signed original in the mail to you this
morning[,]” and Paul received it at his home in the mail shortly thereafter.
State’s Ex. 3.
[7] The Note reflected that payment of $55,000.00 was due on July 3, 2014, but by
that date, Paul had received no payment on the loan. Therefore, he sent an
email concerning default on the Note to the following people: McIntyre; one of
McIntyre’s partners at The Dane Group named Shelly Guzman; and Spencer,
whose name appeared as “Guarantor” on the Note. State’s Ex. 1. McIntyre
responded to Paul, stating that he had been in the hospital and that he “would
be working on paying it[.]” Tr. at 119. Paul received a partial payment from
The Dane Group on July 9, another on July 10, and a third on July 25. On
July 31, McIntyre met with Paul in person, and McIntyre told Paul, “[I] made a
mistake,” explaining that “the guarantor on the [N]ote was not Mark Spencer.”
Id. at 120. McIntyre told Paul that there was a personal guarantor, although
McIntyre “did not share the name of that person” with Paul. Id. Thereafter, on
August 6, McIntyre received a fourth partial payment from The Dane Group.
On August 15, 2014, because money was still due and owing, Paul attempted to
reach McIntyre by text message, but received a reply that McIntyre’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1509-CR-1604 | May 20, 2016 Page 4 of 11
“employment had been terminated” and that McIntyre “was no longer with
The Dane Group.” Id. at 121.
[8] On August 19, Paul met with McIntyre, and McIntyre promised “that he would
personally take care of the money that was due” to Paul & Associates. Id. Paul
received no further payment on the amount owed, and he thereafter filed a civil
lawsuit on the Note against The Dane Group, McIntyre, and Spencer. Paul’s
counsel received a letter from McIntyre, suggesting that he would/could
provide another note with collateral for amounts owing, and he stated that
Spencer was not in any way involved in the original Note of February 3, 2014.
State’s Ex. 4.
[9] The State charged McIntyre with one count of Class C felony forgery, alleging
that, on or about February 3, 2014, McIntyre with intent to defraud “did utter a
written instrument,” namely a promissory note, “in such a manner that it
purports to have been made by authority of one who did not give authority, to-
wit: Mark Spencer[.]” Appellant’s App. at 102.
[10] At the ensuing jury trial, Paul testified that he received a total of $35,889.55 in
payments during July and August 2014, but he was still owed approximately
$20,000.00, plus interest on the Note. Paul stated that he “absolutely” relied on
the existence of a guarantor on the Note when entering into the transaction. Tr.
at 125. When Paul was asked if the other “deals” in which he had engaged
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1509-CR-1604 | May 20, 2016 Page 5 of 11
with The Dane Group included a guarantor, Paul replied, “They did.” 2 Id. at
134.
[11] Spencer, an Oklahoma businessman, also testified at trial. At all relevant times,
Spencer lived in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, and he met McIntyre, through an
acquaintance, in the summer of 2012 when McIntyre was in Bartlesville,
investigating real estate business investment opportunities. In partnership with
The Dane Group, Spencer opened Indian Coffee Company in July 2013.
Spencer testified that on July 7, 2014, he received the email from Paul about the
unpaid Note, but that at that time he did not know, and had never heard of,
Paul. He, therefore, attempted to contact McIntyre “to find out what was going
on,” but was unable to reach him, so he spoke to Guzman, who told Spencer
that the situation “was just a mistake.” Tr. at 144. Spencer later reached
McIntyre, who told Spencer that he “would fix it[.]” Id. Spencer explained
that, in early 2014, he had contacted McIntyre regarding the issue of a need for
additional funding, but that until he received Paul’s email in July 2014, he had
no knowledge of the Note, Paul, or the fact that Paul loaned $50,000.00.
Spencer stated that while Indian Coffee Company did receive a sum of
$50,000.00 from The Dane Group, most of that money was used for daily
operating expenses, and only an estimated 25% was used for expansion. He
stated that, although his name appeared on the Note, he did not sign it, and,
2
Paul testified that he received full payment on “three of the five” investment transactions in which he
loaned money to The Dane Group. Tr. at 134.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1509-CR-1604 | May 20, 2016 Page 6 of 11
contrary to what the notarization reflected, he had never been in Indiana until
the day prior to trial.
[12] McIntyre’s defense at trial was that it was “error” that Spencer’s name appeared
on the Note as a guarantor, and, consequently, McIntyre had no intent to
defraud Paul. Appellant’s Br. at 10. McIntyre further claimed that Paul did not
rely on the Note when loaning the money. The State maintained that there was
no evidence to support the suggestion that Spencer’s name on the Note was
simply a mistake and, the State argued, the testimony showed that Paul relied
on the Note when he loaned the money. The jury convicted McIntyre as
charged. After reviewing McIntyre’s criminal history, which included two
adult felonies – one Class C felony conviction for corrupt business influence
and one federal felony conviction for forged securities – the trial court
determined that the matter was “a mandatory non-suspendable sentence
pursuant to [McIntyre’s] prior criminal history[.]” Appellant’s App. at 15. The
trial court sentenced McIntyre to eight years, with six years executed, serving
five years in the Indiana Department of Correction and one year in the
Hamilton County community corrections program, and the remaining two
years suspended to probation. Id. at 8, 13-14. McIntyre now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[13] McIntyre claims the evidence was insufficient to convict him of forgery. When
reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the
evidence nor assess witness credibility. Diallo v. State, 928 N.E.2d 250, 252
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1509-CR-1604 | May 20, 2016 Page 7 of 11
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Instead, we will consider only the probative evidence and
reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom in support of the verdict.
Id. We will affirm if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn
from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Bocanegra v. State, 969 N.E.2d
1026, 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied.
[14] The State charged McIntyre, on or about November 6, 2014, with Class C
felony forgery. Appellant’s App. at 29. To convict McIntyre as charged, the
State was required to prove that he, with intent to defraud, uttered the Note, in
such a manner that it purported to have been made with Spencer’s authority,
when Spencer had not given such authority. Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(b)(4)
(forgery is committed when defendant with intent to defraud, makes, utters, or
possesses written instrument such that instrument purported to have been made
by authority of one who did not give authority). “Proof of intent to defraud
requires a showing that the defendant demonstrated ‘intent to deceive and
thereby work a reliance and injury.’” Bocanegra, 969 N.E.2d at 1028 (quoting
Wendling v. State, 465 N.E.2d 169, 170 (Ind. 1984)). Because intent is a mental
state, the fact-finder often must “resort to the reasonable inferences based upon
an examination of the surrounding circumstances to determine” whether—from
the person’s conduct and the natural consequences therefrom—there is a
showing or inference of the requisite criminal intent. Diallo, 928 N.E.2d at 253.
On appeal, McIntyre does not challenge that he uttered the Note in a manner
purporting to have been made by the authority of Spencer when Spencer never
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1509-CR-1604 | May 20, 2016 Page 8 of 11
gave such authority. Rather, McIntyre’s sufficiency claim is that the State’s
evidence failed to establish that (1) McIntyre had an intent to deceive when he
uttered the Note and (2) Paul relied on the Note when he loaned the money.
[15] In asserting that he had no intent to defraud, McIntyre maintains that Spencer’s
name appearing on the Note was an error. Other than the fact that McIntyre
told Paul (and Guzman likewise told Spencer) that Spencer’s name appearing
on the Note was “a mistake,” no other evidence was presented to explain why
or how Spencer’s name mistakenly appeared as a signatory on the Note. Tr. at
120. The evidence in the record is that McIntyre presented Paul with an
investment opportunity with Indian Coffee Company, stating that the
restaurant “is expanding” and that the funds would be used to purchase
equipment, perform improvements, and expand seating and serving areas.
State’s Ex. 2. McIntyre’s proposal to Paul was that Paul would receive
$55,000.00 by July 3, 2014, on his $50,000.00 investment. The emailed offer
expressly stated, “Let me know if you’re interested and I will have the note
drafted and signed for you,” which reflects McIntyre’s representation that a
promissory note would be included in the “deal” if Paul was interested in
participating. Id. Thereafter, a Note was prepared in accordance with the
agreement, and McIntyre signed the Note as “Borrower.” He also notarized
the Note, stating that Spencer: (1) appeared before him; (2) affirmed the
contents of the Note; and (3) signed it as a “Personal Guarantor.” State’s Ex. 1.
However, Spencer did not sign the Note, did not authorize anyone else to sign
his name on the Note, and, in fact, did not even know about the Note. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1509-CR-1604 | May 20, 2016 Page 9 of 11
Note was dated February 3, 2014, the day after McIntyre contacted Paul by
email to offer the “great opportunity” to invest in Indian Coffee Company. Id.
Spencer testified that, contrary to McIntyre’s statements to Paul in the February
2, 2014 email, the majority of the $50,000.00 that Indian Coffee Company
received was applied toward inventory, payroll, and daily operating expenses,
not expansion. McIntyre’s argument that he did not intend to defraud
constitutes an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence in his favor, which we
will not do. Diallo, 928 N.E.2d at 253.
[16] In making the argument that Paul did not rely on the Note, McIntyre highlights
the fact that Paul did not receive the Note until February 18, 2014, which was
fifteen days after Paul provided the check to The Dane Group. Because Paul
did not receive the Note until after providing the money, McIntyre argues,
“[Paul] relied upon the [February 2, 2014] email, not the [P]romissory [N]ote.”
Appellant’s Br. at 14 (emphasis omitted). In support of his position, McIntyre
points to the following exchange during defense counsel’s cross-examination of
Paul:
Q: You then brought in a $50,000 check on behalf of Paul &
Associates and dropped it off at The Dane Group?
A: Yes.
Q: And it wasn’t until 15 days later that you received the
promissory note?
A: Yes.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1509-CR-1604 | May 20, 2016 Page 10 of 11
Q: So you dropped off the $50,000 check in reliance on an e-
mail, not the promissory note?
A: Yes.
Tr. at 126-27. However, we are unpersuaded that this isolated statement
establishes that Paul did not rely on the Note. The referenced email specifically
states that, if Paul was interested in the “deal” and chose to invest in Indian
Coffee Company, then McIntyre assured Paul that he would “have the note
drafted and signed” for him. State’s Ex. 2. A Note was part of McIntyre’s offer
to which Paul agreed, and Paul loaned the money with the expectation that he
would receive a Note to secure payment. Furthermore, Paul’s testimony
reflected that he “absolutely” relied on the existence of a personal guarantor,
and Paul testified that if he had known that there was no guarantor in this case,
he “would have demanded [his] money back earlier.” Tr. at 125, 134. From
this, it was reasonable for the jury to infer that Paul relied on the Note as part of
his agreement to loan the funds to The Dane Group. Based on the record
before us, we find that the State presented sufficient evidence from which the
jury could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that McIntyre committed Class C
felony forgery as charged.
[17] Affirmed.
[18] Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1509-CR-1604 | May 20, 2016 Page 11 of 11