Edward M. Fuse, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Edward M. Fuse appeals his conviction for Level 6 felony aiding, inducing, or causing theft, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. We disagree and affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Nine times between October 20 and November 14, 2020, security cameras at Lowe's in Muncie recorded two men working together to steal high-dollar items. The two men generally went into the store together but left separately, and each time the same man took the items out of the store on a flatbed cart. Due to the Covid pandemic, the men were wearing masks over their mouths and noses and were therefore difficult to identify on video. However, during one of the thefts, the man without the cart stopped and made a purchase under an account for Tees and Blues, a business registered to Fuse.

[3] The State charged Fuse with Level 6 felony aiding, inducing, or causing theft and charged Michael Ferguson with Level 6 felony theft. Ferguson pled guilty and then gave a deposition in Fuse's case. Ferguson testified that Fuse was with him when he stole from Lowe's but that Fuse didn't know he was stealing.

[4] A bench trial was held in Fuse's case. Ferguson was unavailable to testify, but a recording of his deposition was entered into evidence and played at trial. The State's only in-court witness was Kyle Harrell, who was an asset-protection manager for Lowe's at the time of the thefts. Harrell testified that Fuse was one of the men shown in the videos—the one who made a purchase under Fuse's business account—though he acknowledged that he had never seen Fuse without a mask and therefore couldn't be “one hundred percent” certain. Tr. pp. 12, 25, 46-48. The trial court found Fuse guilty as charged and sentenced him to thirty days in jail and a period of probation.

[5] Fuse now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Fuse contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. He doesn't dispute that the videos show both men participating in the thefts. Rather, he argues that Harrell's testimony identifying him as one of the men should be disregarded under the incredible-dubiosity doctrine. That doctrine allows us to impinge upon a fact-finder's responsibility to judge the credibility of witnesses when “the testimony is so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no reasonable person could believe it.” Hampton v. State, 921 N.E.2d 27, 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), reh'g denied, trans. denied. The doctrine rarely applies and “requires that there be: 1) a sole testifying witness; 2) testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion; and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence.” Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 756 (Ind. 2015).

[7] Fuse hasn't proven any of those three elements, let alone all three. First, while Harrell was the only person who testified in person at trial, he wasn't the “sole testifying witness.” Ferguson testified in a deposition—explaining that Fuse was with him when he stole from Lowe's—and a recording of the deposition was admitted into evidence. Second, even if Harrell had been the sole testifying witness, his testimony wasn't “inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion.” He merely stated that he couldn't be “one hundred percent” certain that Fuse was one of the masked men in the video. Third, there was not “a complete absence of circumstantial evidence.” During one of the thefts, the man Harrell identified as Fuse stopped and made a purchase using Fuse's business account. Because Fuse can't satisfy the requirements of the incredibledubiosity doctrine, we affirm his conviction.

[8] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Judges Bailey and DeBoer concur. Bailey, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.