MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 08 2019, 10:50 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Anna Onaitis Holden 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
Sean Piatt, April 8, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2294
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Helen Marchal,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G15-1802-F6-6557
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2294 | April 8, 2019 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] In February of 2018, Sean Piatt forcibly opened the door of a restroom stall
occupied by N.T. and ordered her to remove her clothes. After N.T. refused,
Piatt told N.T. that he was a police officer and again ordered her to remove her
clothes. Piatt left the restroom after N.T. demanded that he leave. Piatt was
charged with Level 6 felony criminal confinement, Level 6 felony
impersonation of a public servant, and Class B misdemeanor battery. In July of
2018, a jury found Piatt guilty as charged. Piatt contends that the State
produced insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for impersonation of a
public servant. Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On February 25, 2018, N.T.’s grandfather dropped her off at the Greyhound
bus station in Indianapolis. After purchasing a ticket, N.T. went into the
women’s restroom and entered the last stall, closing the door behind her. As
N.T. began to pull down her pants, she noticed a person looking at her through
the gap created by the hinges on the door. The person, later identified as Piatt,
forcefully pulled open the door. N.T. pulled up her pants and attempted to
leave but was stopped when Piatt grabbed her arm. As he stood blocking the
doorway, Piatt ordered N.T. to remove her clothes and demanded to know
what was in her bags. When N.T. refused Piatt’s orders, Piatt told her that he
was a police officer and again ordered her to remove her clothes. The encounter
ended when Piatt left the restroom after N.T. demanded he leave.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2294 | April 8, 2019 Page 2 of 4
[3] On February 25, 2018, the State charged Piatt with Level 6 felony criminal
confinement, Level 6 felony impersonation of a public servant, and Class B
misdemeanor battery. On July 25, 2018, a jury trial was held after which Piatt
was found guilty as charged. On August 23, 2018, Piatt received an aggregate
sentence of 910 days of incarceration.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Piatt contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to convict him of
Level 6 felony impersonation of a public servant. When reviewing the
sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we consider only probative
evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the factfinder’s decision. Young
v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1225, 1226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. It is the role
of the factfinder, not ours, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence.
Id. We will affirm a conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. To convict Piatt
of Level 6 felony impersonation of a public servant, the State was required to
prove that Piatt intended to induce compliance with his instructions, orders, or
requests by falsely representing that he was a law enforcement officer. Ind.
Code § 35-44.1-2-6. “Intent is a mental state, and the trier of fact often must
infer its existence from surrounding circumstances when determining whether
the requisite intent exists.” Goodner v. State, 685 N.E.2d 1058, 1062 (Ind. 1997).
[5] We conclude that there is sufficient evidence to sustain Piatt’s conviction. The
record indicates that Piatt demanded that N.T. remove her clothes and tell him
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2294 | April 8, 2019 Page 3 of 4
what was inside her bags. After N.T. refused, Piatt told N.T. that he was a
police officer and again ordered her to remove her clothes. A reasonable
factfinder could conclude that Piatt’s intention in telling N.T. that he was a
police officer was to induce her to comply with his orders. Whether N.T.
believed Piatt is inconsequential. See Poole v. State, 559 N.E.2d 1214, 1216 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1990) (“Whether the hospital staff believed him and submitted to his
misrepresentation of authority or otherwise acted to their detriment, is not the
relevant inquiry.”). Piatt argues that his impersonation of a police officer was
“too shoddy” and “slapdash” to establish intent. Appellant’s Br. p. 9–10. His
argument, however, is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence,
which we will not do. Young, 973 N.E.2d at 1226. Piatt has failed to establish
that the State produced insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for Level
6 felony impersonation of a public servant.
[6] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Crone, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2294 | April 8, 2019 Page 4 of 4