TASKER v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Heather Tasker appeals her conviction for theft, as a Class A misdemeanor.¹ Tasker raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut her mistake-of-fact defense. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Timothy Good is legally blind and uses his bike, a green and black Giant bike with two water bottle holders and extra reflectors and lights, as a primary mode of transportation. On April 21, 2023, Good “locked up” his bike at a bike rack outside his apartment using a “full cable chain” that had a combination lock. Tr. at 32.

[3] In the early morning hours of April 22, Tasker told her friend, Mark Myers, that her bike had been stolen and that she had found it at an apartment complex. Tasker told Myers that the bike had her lock on it but that she could not remember the combination. Tasker asked Myers to help her cut the chain. Later that morning, Tasker took a green and black Giant bike to a pawn shop and pawned it for $20. The manager of the pawn shop put the bike's serial number into a computer system.

[4] At around 4:00 p.m., Good went to the bike rack, and he noticed that his bike was gone. He called the police and reported the theft. Corporal Nathaniel Toth with the Elkhart Police Department responded to the dispatch, and Good provided him with a description of the bike. Officers were able to obtain a copy of the purchase receipt for the bike, and it included the bike's serial number. A few days later, officers received a notification from a police database that there was a possible match for Good's bike at the pawn shop. An officer confirmed that a bike matching the description and serial number of Good's bike was located at the pawn shop and that Tasker had pawned it.

[5] The State charged Tasker with theft, as a Class A misdemeanor. During an ensuing jury trial, Good testified that he had added a water bottle holder, extra reflectors, and extra lights to the bike for “safety purposes[.]” Id. at 35. He also testified that there are usually one or two other bikes on the bike rack but that “none ․ were similar” to his. Id. at 36. Detective Ryan Weir then testified that surveillance footage showed a male and a female “walk[ ] up to a bicycle and cut the lock, and then the female took the bicycle away.” Id. at 90. And Myers testified that Tasker had told him that the Giant bike was hers and that she needed help cutting the lock. He also testified that, while Tasker had owned multiple bikes, he did not recall “any of them ever be[ing] black and green[.]” Id. at 84.

[6] Tasker testified in her defense. She testified that it was her bike on the stand and that she was “afraid” someone was going to take it, so she wanted to move it. Id. at 97. She then testified that she tried to get the lock off but “couldn't remember the code,” so she asked Myers to help. Id. She also testified that she pawned the bike to keep it safe while she left town because she did not have a place to keep it. Id. at 98. And she testified that she did not have “any specific features” on her bike, that she had noticed the lights on the bike, and that she had “taken the lights off” before she pawned it. Id. at 98, 102.

[7] At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Tasker guilty as charged. Following a sentencing hearing, the court sentenced her to one year at the Elkhart County Jail, with alternative placement at community corrections. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Tasker contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her conviction for theft. To demonstrate that Tasker committed theft, as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was required to prove that she had knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over the property of Good, with the intent to deprive Good of any part of its value or use. See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a). On appeal, Tasker does not dispute that she took Good's bike and pawned it. However, she maintains that the State failed to rebut her mistake-of-fact defense.

[9] “It is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was reasonably mistaken about a matter of fact, if the mistake negates the culpability required for commission of the offense.” I.C. § 35-41-3-7. Whether the defendant made a mistake of fact is a question for the trier of fact, which we review like other challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. McGill v. State, 160 N.E.3d 239, 246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Suggs v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1190, 1193 (Ind. 2016). Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the conviction. Id. We will affirm if there is probative evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[10] A mistake-of-fact defense requires a defendant to prove the mistake was honest and reasonable; was about a matter of fact; and negates the culpability required to commit the crime. See Potter v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1127, 1135 (Ind. 1997). The State, however, “retains the ultimate burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the charged crime, including culpability or intent[.]” Hoskins v. State, 563 N.E.2d 571, 576 (Ind. 1990). The State may meet its burden of proving there was no reasonably held mistake of fact “by directly rebutting evidence, by affirmatively showing that the defendant made no such mistake, or by simply relying upon evidence from its case-in-chief.” Saunders v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1117, 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.

[11] On appeal, Tasker alleges that “she exerted unauthorized control over the property of Timothy Good,” but that she “did so under the mistaken belief that the bicycle in question was hers.” Appellant's Br. at 9. Thus, she maintains that she did “not have the required culpability to be convicted of” theft. Id. We cannot agree.

[12] The evidence most favorable to the verdict shows that Good had modified his bike through the addition of an extra water bottle holder, reflectors, and lights and that Tasker did not have “any specific features” on her bike. Tr. at 98. Further, Tasker acknowledged that she saw the lights on the bike but that she “had taken the lights off before [she] pawned” it. Id. at 102. In addition, while Tasker had had several bikes, Myers did not recall “any of them ever be[ing] black and green[.]” Id. at 84. Stated differently, the evidence shows that the bike Tasker took did not look like her own bike. And Tasker was only able to take possession of the bike by cutting a lock, which further supports an inference that she knew that the bike did not belong to her. While Tasker testified that the bike was hers and that she had forgotten the combination to the lock, the jury was not required to believe her testimony even though it was uncontradicted. See Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. 2004).

[13] The evidence most favorable to the jury's verdict—that she had cut the lock off of a bicycle that was a different color than hers and that contained features that hers did not and that she then pawned—supports a reasonable inference that any mistake was not honest and reasonable. As such, the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Tasker's mistake-of-fact defense. Her argument on appeal is simply a request for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.

Conclusion

[14] The State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Tasker's mistake-of-fact defense. We therefore affirm her conviction.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.