MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Jun 28 2017, 6:31 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General
Matthew B. MacKenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Brian Darnell Jurbrar Burns, June 28, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1701-CR-4
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court.
The Honorable David M. Hooper,
State of Indiana, Magistrate.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Case No.
49G12-1604-CM-14332
Shepard, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1701-CR-4 | June 28, 2017 Page 1 of 3
1
[1] Brian Burns appeals his conviction for theft, a Class A misdemeanor, claiming
there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. We affirm.
[2] The State’s charge against Burns alleged he stole a watch from a jewelry store
on April 26, 2016. Burns requested trial by jury, a jury found Burns guilty as
charged, and the court imposed a sentence.
[3] To obtain a conviction of theft as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was
required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Burns (1) knowingly or
intentionally (2) exerted unauthorized control (3) over the property of another
person (4) with the intent to deprive the owner of any part of the use or value of
the property. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a). We will affirm a conviction unless no
rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. Hampton v. State, 873 N.E.2d 1074 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
[4] Burns argues the State did not prove he was the person who stole the watch. At
trial, four eyewitnesses identified Burns as the person in a green trench coat
who stole a watch and fled into a nearby mall prior to arrest. Cassandra Smith
worked in the jewelry store and noticed Burns standing by a watch display case.
When she removed a Bulova watch from the case to show him, Burns grabbed
the watch and ran from the store. Smith informed her manager, Keith, who ran
after Burns through the parking lot, toward a mall.
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a) (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1701-CR-4 | June 28, 2017 Page 2 of 3
[5] Sarah Koerting was sitting outside near a mall entrance and saw Burns being
chased by another man in the parking lot. Koerting recognized Burns because
she had seen him in the area before. He was holding a watch or jewelry. The
man chasing Burns shouted at Koerting to call 911. Koerting called 911 as the
two men entered the mall. Several police officers were dispatched to the mall,
including Officer Jeff Krider.
[6] Meanwhile, Aimee Martinie was working at a clothing store in the mall when
Burns ran into the store, entered a dressing room, and closed the door. Store
employees knocked on the door to see if he needed help, and Burns came out a
few minutes later. At that point, Officer Krider and others entered the store and
arrested Burns. The officers searched him and discovered a watch in his coat
pocket. Krider gave the watch to Keith. Keith returned to the jewelry store
with the watch, forty-five minutes after Burns took it and ran.
[7] Burns points out inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies, but the
inconsistencies were a matter for the jury to resolve. The eyewitness
identifications are more than sufficient to sustain the judgment. See Williams v.
State, 512 N.E.2d 1087 (Ind. 1987) (evidence sufficient to support conviction for
theft; factual inconsistencies were matter for jury).
[8] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[9] Affirmed.
Kirsch, Mathias, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1701-CR-4 | June 28, 2017 Page 3 of 3