FILED
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Apr 17 2018, 9:12 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
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
Elizabeth A. Houdek Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Caroline G. Templeton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Melissa Anderson, April 17, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1710-CR-2222
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable James Osborn, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Plaintiff
49G09-1604-F6-12926
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1710-CR-2222 | April 17, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] In April of 2016, Appellant-Defendant Melissa Anderson was stopped leaving a
Wal-Mart after having scanned only forty-eight of the fifty-three items in her
shopping cart. Surveillance video revealed that Anderson had handled two of
the items before placing them in her cart un-scanned and that the other three
items were in the same location as another item that had removed, scanned,
and returned to the cart. The State charged Anderson with Level 6 felony theft
with a prior conviction, she was found guilty as charged, and the trial court
sentenced her to 545 days of incarceration with all but eight suspended.
Anderson contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to sustain a
finding that she had the intent to commit theft. Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On April 5, 2016, Anderson went to an Indianapolis Wal-Mart with her two
young children. Anderson drew the attention of Sarah Hill, the store’s asset
protection manager, because of the large number of items that she had with her
in the self-checkout line. As she watched surveillance video, Hill noticed a
confrontation between Anderson and the attendant, seemingly because the
attendant had asked Anderson to move to an attended checkout lane according
to store policy. Because Anderson was argumentative and had so many items,
Hill continued to watch her.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1710-CR-2222 | April 17, 2018 Page 2 of 5
[3] Anderson scanned a box of French toast sticks and put that box as well as a box
of toaster strudels on the scale; the box of toaster strudels ended up in
Anderson’s cart un-scanned. Anderson lifted a bag of dog food from the
ground and placed it into her cart without scanning it. Anderson scanned a
case of Dr. Pepper that was taken from beneath the basket of her cart and
returned it to that location after scanning, but did not scan the other cases of
soda or a bag of potatoes that were in the same location. Anderson passed all
points of sale without paying for the bag of dog food, bag of potatoes, case of
Mountain Dew, case of Pepsi, and box of toaster strudels that were in her cart.
The total value of those items was $30.41. It was determined that Anderson
had paid for only forty-eight of the fifty-three items that were in her cart.
[4] On April 6, 2016, the State charged Anderson with Level 6 felony theft. On
July 19, 2017, a jury found Anderson guilty of Class A misdemeanor theft. The
court found that Anderson had a prior conviction for theft and so entered
judgment of conviction as Level 6 felony. On August 31, 2017, the trial court
sentenced Anderson to 545 days of incarceration and suspended all but eight
days, which Anderson had already served.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Anderson contends that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain
her theft conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we
neither weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility. Jordan v. State,
656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995). We look only to the evidence of probative
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1710-CR-2222 | April 17, 2018 Page 3 of 5
value and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom which support the
verdict. Id. If from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative value from
which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt, we will affirm the conviction. Spangler v. State, 607
N.E.2d 720, 724 (Ind. 1993).
[6] To sustain Anderson’s theft conviction, the State was required to establish that
she “knowingly or intentionally exert[ed] unauthorized control over the
property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part
of its value or use.” Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2. Anderson does not dispute that she
left the checkout without paying for five items in her cart but argues that the
State failed to present sufficient evidence to permit the inference that she
knowingly or intentionally committed theft. Intent may be proven by
circumstantial evidence. McCaskill v. State, 3 N.E.3d 1047, 1050 (Ind. Ct. App.
2016). A defendant’s intent can be inferred from his or her conduct and the
natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically and reasonably
points. Id. With respect to a conviction that rests at least partially on
circumstantial evidence, this Court will only reverse when it can be said that as
a matter of law that reasonable persons could not form inferences with regard to
each material element of the offense. Id.
[7] The State produced sufficient evidence to sustain a finding that Anderson
intended to commit theft. Anderson resisted to point of confrontation when she
was asked to go to an attended register pursuant to a store policy specifically
designed to prevent theft, giving rise to an inference that that is precisely why
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1710-CR-2222 | April 17, 2018 Page 4 of 5
she resisted. At least two of the items at issue, the bag of dog food and the box
of toaster strudels, were handled by Anderson and placed in her cart without
being scanned. Moreover, Anderson removed a case of Dr. Pepper from the
basket of her shopping cart, scanned it, and returned it to the same location
without scanning the three other items that were also under the basket. Under
the circumstances, the jury was entitled to conclude that Anderson did not
accidentally fail to scan the two items that she handled at the register and that
she did not actually fail to notice the three items underneath the basket of her
cart. It is worth noting that most of the items Anderson brought to the register
were, in fact, scanned, indicating a familiarity with the self-checkout process.
Moreover, a case of Dr. Pepper from the same location as three of the un-
scanned items was removed, scanned, and returned, undercutting any
suggestion that the three items were simply overlooked. Anderson’s argument
is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not
do. We conclude that the State produced sufficient evidence to sustain
Anderson’s conviction for Level 6 felony theft.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1710-CR-2222 | April 17, 2018 Page 5 of 5