YOCUM v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Emily Yocum appeals her conviction for Class A misdemeanor theft,¹ arguing insufficient evidence supports her conviction. Concluding sufficient evidence supports her conviction, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Lauri Lingelbach was walking into Trader Joe's from the parking lot when she first encountered Yocum. Lingelbach conversed briefly with Yocum. After shopping for some time, Lingelbach encountered Yocum again. As they began talking, Lingelbach took her phone out of her purse to text her husband. Lingelbach returned her phone to her purse and placed her purse on top of her shopping cart. The only person within reach of Lingelbach's shopping cart was Yocum. Lingelbach turned away from Yocum to get something off the shelf. When Lingelbach turned back around, she realized both her purse and Yocum had disappeared. Lingelbach saw Yocum walking down an aisle with her hood up and began screaming, “She stole my purse, she stole my purse, that girl right there stole my purse.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 18. Yocum had also put on a disposable medical facemask. The manager followed Yocum out of the store and took cellphone video of Yocum walking to a truck, getting in, and driving off. Lingelbach followed behind the manager saying Yocum had stolen her purse. There were no security cameras inside the store. Police recovered Lingelbach's purse nearby, but her cellphone and sixty dollars were missing.

[3] Detective Arthur Merkle of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department investigated the theft. He used BMV records to link Yocum to the truck pictured in the video. And Yocum's cell phone records showed Yocum was near Trader Joe's and the recovery location of the purse shortly after the theft. Using this information, he identified Yocum as a suspect. He presented Lingelbach and the manager with a photo array, which included a photo of Yocum. However, the photo was outdated and did not show Yocum's facial tattoo. Neither Lingelbach nor the manager were able to identify Yocum from the photo array.

[4] The State charged Yocum with Class A misdemeanor theft. Lingelbach and Detective Merkle testified at Yocum's bench trial. While testifying, Lingelbach identified Yocum as the person she met at Trader Joe's. The State admitted the video footage and a photograph of Yocum in the parking lot. Yocum's facial tattoo was visible in both, and she did not appear to have anything in her ears. Yocum also testified. She conceded she was in the Trader Joe's parking lot on the day of the incident and admitted she was the woman in the video footage and photograph admitted at trial. See id. at 48. But Yocum testified she never entered Trader Joe's that day and did not meet or speak to Lingelbach. She claimed she was picking up a friend who was getting a haircut in the same strip mall and had briefly stepped out of her vehicle to smoke. She then realized she had parked at the wrong end of the strip mall and began to return to her vehicle. She said she was unaware of anyone following her until she began to get in her vehicle because she had Airpods in both ears and was speaking to her friend on the phone. Yocum's friend testified he had asked Yocum to give him a ride after his haircut and was on the phone with her at the time.

[5] In making its decision, the trial court noted Yocum's testimony contradicted the photographic and video evidence presented by the State and determined Lingelbach's testimony and in-court identification of Yocum as the person she spoke to inside the store was the more credible of the conflicting testimonies. The trial court found Yocum guilty of theft.

Sufficient evidence supports Yocum's conviction.

[6] Yocum argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her conviction. A sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim warrants a “deferential standard of review in which we ‘neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility[.]’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied). Instead, we respect the fact-finder's exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence, Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018), and consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact, Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021). We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024). It is “not necessary that the evidence ‘overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ ” Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 133 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind. 1995)).

[7] To convict Yocum of theft as charged, the State must have shown beyond a reasonable doubt she (1) knowingly; (2) exerted unauthorized control over Lingelbach's property; (3) with the intent to deprive Lingelbach of the property's value or use. See I.C. § 35-43-4-2(a). Yocum argues the State failed to prove she was the person who stole Lingelbach's purse, claiming broadly that “large gaps” exist in the State's case when viewed in its entirety. Appellant's Br. at 10. Specifically, Yocum claims Lingelbach's failure to identify Yocum in a photo array prior to trial casts doubt on Lingelbach's testimony. She also highlights her own testimony and the “consisten[t]” testimony of her friend explaining her actions and reason to be in the Trader Joe's parking lot. Id.

[8] Considering only the evidence and inferences supporting the judgment, we conclude the State presented sufficient evidence for the trial court to reasonably infer Yocum stole Lingelbach's purse. Lingelbach identified Yocum in court as the person who stole her purse. Lingelbach's testimony placed Yocum inside Trader Joe's and within reach of her purse. Lingelbach testified that when she realized both her purse and Yocum had disappeared, she began to scream and point at Yocum. This alerted the store manager who followed Yocum into the parking lot. The State presented both video footage and a photo of Yocum in the parking lot. The trial court found several discrepancies between this evidence and Yocum's testimony. For example, the trial court determined the video footage showed Yocum walking toward a truck from about twenty-five feet away and the photo showed she was not wearing Airpods. This evidence disputed Yocum's claim that she had merely stepped out of her vehicle to smoke and was unaware she was being spoken to or followed. These discrepancies along with the trial court's determination Lingelbach's direct testimony was more credible than Yocum's support the judgment. The trial court has exclusive province to weigh evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses. Phipps, 90 N.E.3d at 1195. Yocum's argument is essentially a request to reweigh the evidence in her favor, which we cannot do.

Conclusion

[9] Sufficient evidence supports the trial court's determination that Yocum knowingly took possession of Lingelbach's purse without permission and with an intent to deprive Lingelbach of her property.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a) (2021).

Kenworthy, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Felix, J., concur.