MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
Apr 16 2020, 8:56 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Darren Bedwell Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Caroline G. Templeton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Tsui-Hsueh Wang, April 16, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1614
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Mark D. Stoner,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
The Honorable Jeffrey L. Marchal,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G06-1803-F5-7600
Shepard, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1614 | April 16, 2020 Page 1 of 7
[1] Tsui-Hsueh Wang was convicted of promoting prostitution and two counts of
prostitution. On appeal, she contends the evidence is insufficient to support her
conviction of promoting prostitution. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In January of 2018, Detective Julian Wilkerson, who works in the vice and
human trafficking unit of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department,
began investigating Wang’s massage parlor. Wang’s business, located at 5510
West 10th Street in Indianapolis, was incorporated in September of 2013 under
the name “Soho Life Inc.” Wang is the sole shareholder. Detectives Peter
Fekkes and Brian Allen also worked the investigation and made a total of four
undercover visits to the massage parlor.
[3] On January 25, Detectives Wilkerson and Fekkes first visited the massage
parlor. Wilkerson watched the building from the parking lot as Detective
Fekkes went inside and was greeted by Wang. Wang asked Detective Fekkes if
he wanted a massage, and Fekkes replied that he wanted a thirty minute
massage. Wang informed him the massage would cost fifty dollars, plus a
mandatory twenty dollar tip. Detective Fekkes paid cash. Wang led him to a
room, told him to get undressed, and then left the room. Several minutes later
“Nicole” entered and began to massage Detective Fekkes’ back. After about
twenty minutes of the massage, Detective Fekkes turned over, pointed at his
genitals, and asked Nicole how much it would cost to have her massage him
there. Nicole asked for clarification and Detective Fekkes stated that he wanted
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1614 | April 16, 2020 Page 2 of 7
her to masturbate him. Nicole responded that it would cost him one hundred
dollars. Detective Fekkes stated that the price seemed expensive; Nicole
responded that “they charge more at that particular massage parlor because the
girls are more attractive.” Tr. Vol. II, pp. 11-12. Fekkes told her that it was too
expensive, gave her another thirty dollars, and left.
[4] On February 1, Detective Fekkes returned to the massage parlor and was again
greeted by Wang. When Detective Fekkes requested a thirty minute massage,
Wang quoted him the same price. Fekkes paid in cash and was led into a room
by Wang who told him to get undressed. This time Wang came back into the
room and began the massage. After twenty minutes, Detective Fekkes rolled
over, and Wang pointed to his genitals and asked if he would like to be
massaged there quoting him one hundred dollars for the service. When
Detective Fekkes asked if Wang could lower the price, she told him she knew
that he had already seen Nicole and that one hundred dollars was the same
price Nicole offered him for the same service. Wang also stated that oral sex
and sexual intercourse were available at a higher cost. Detective Fekkes stated
he did not have enough money, tipped Wang an additional thirty dollars, and
left.
[5] The following day, Detective Allen went undercover at the massage parlor. On
arrival, he knocked on an interior door of the parlor and was greeted by Wang.
Wang asked Detective Allen how long of a massage he wanted, and Allen
requested a thirty minute massage. Wang told him the price would be fifty
dollars plus a mandatory twenty dollar tip, and Detective Allen gave her eighty
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1614 | April 16, 2020 Page 3 of 7
dollars. Wang massaged Allen’s back for about twenty minutes and then asked
him to turn over. Wang asked if Detective Allen would like anything else, to
which he responded, “[A] hand job.” Id. at 22. When Wang did not
understand, Detective Allen gestured to indicate masturbation. Wang told him
it would cost one hundred dollars. When Detective Allen stated that it was too
expensive, Wang offered to remove her clothing and allow him to touch her for
one hundred dollars. In the alternative, for sixty dollars, she offered to remove
her clothing but would not allow him to touch her. Detective Allen told her
that he did not have enough money and left the massage parlor.
[6] On February 28, Detective Fekkes returned to Wang’s massage parlor for the
third time and had essentially the same experience.
[7] Detective Wilkerson executed a search warrant of Wang’s massage parlor in
March of 2018. The police found an American Express Card with Wang’s
name and the name of the massage parlor, Soho Life, Inc., on the card. They
also found a utility bill bearing Wang’s name and the name of the business.
1
[8] The State charged Wang with promoting prostitution, a Level 5 Felony, and
2
two counts of prostitution, as Class A misdemeanors. Wang waived her right
to a jury trial, and the matter was tried to the bench. The court found Wang
1
Ind. Code § 35-45-4-4 (2017).
2
Ind. Code § 35-45-4-2 (2017).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1614 | April 16, 2020 Page 4 of 7
guilty on all counts and sentenced her to an aggregate term of two years and
two days, fully suspended except for time served. Wang now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[9] Wang claims the State failed to prove she knew Nicole would engage in
prostitution on the massage parlor’s premises. When reviewing a challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a criminal conviction, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses. Bailey v. State, 979
N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012). We consider only the probative evidence and
reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154,
1157 (Ind. 2016). We affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value
supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact
could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Bailey, 979
N.E.2d at 135.
[10] To convict Wang of promoting prostitution, the State needed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Wang (1) had control over the use of a place and (2)
knowingly or intentionally permitted another person to use the place for
prostitution. See Ind. Code § 35-45-4-4(b)(3).
[11] At trial, the State introduced evidence that Wang was present each time a
detective visited the massage parlor, greeted them, and conducted each
transaction that occurred. Additionally, Wang’s name was on the documents
of incorporation of the business, her name and the business name were on a
credit card, and her name was on the utility bills for the premises. This
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1614 | April 16, 2020 Page 5 of 7
evidence supports the court’s conclusion that Wang had control over the use of
the premises.
[12] Knowledge and intent are mental functions; therefore, they must often be
proven by circumstantial evidence. Hightower v. State, 866 N.E.2d 356, 368
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Duren v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1198, 1202 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1999), trans. denied (2000)), trans. denied. On review, we do not determine
whether the circumstantial evidence overcomes every reasonable hypothesis of
innocence. Maxwell v. State, 731 N.E.2d 459, 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans.
denied. Instead, we determine whether inferences may be reasonably drawn
from that evidence to support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[13] Detectives Fekkes and Allen conducted four undercover visits to the massage
parlor in which Wang greeted them, quoted them the price of the service, and
collected the payment. Wang would subsequently lead the detectives to a room
and instruct them to undress. During Detective Fekkes’ first undercover visit,
Nicole conducted the massage, stated the price for the additional request of
prostitution, and gave an explanation as to why Wang’s massage parlor charges
more than others. When Detective Fekkes returned the second time, Wang
conducted his massage and told Detective Fekkes she had knowledge of the
transaction between him and Nicole. This is sufficient evidence from which the
finder of fact could determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Wang knew that
Nicole was engaging in prostitution activities.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1614 | April 16, 2020 Page 6 of 7
Conclusion
[14] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
[15] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1614 | April 16, 2020 Page 7 of 7