S.G., Appellant-Respondent v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] S.G. challenges his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for criminal mischief, as a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult.¹ S.G. raises the sole issue of whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his adjudication. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Wendell Cates owns several fields in Grant County on which he grows both corn and beans. On September 16, 2024, police responded to a report that three individuals had driven an ATV through some of Cates’ fields. When Grant County Sheriff's Deputy Ed Fields responded to the call, the ATV was on the roadway, and Deputy Fields conducted a traffic stop. At that time, S.G.’s brother, Thomas Gifford (“Thomas”), was driving, and Blaze Young and S.G. were passengers. Deputy Fields observed “corn stalks” hanging off of the ATV. Tr. at 9. And Deputy Rachel Poletti observed “fresh” damage to a corn field. Id. at 15.

[3] The State filed a petition alleging that S.G. was a delinquent child for committing criminal mischief, as a Class A misdemeanor, if committed by an adult.² The court held a fact-finding hearing on the State's petition on October 7. At the beginning of the hearing, the State moved to amend the petition to allege that S.G. was a delinquent child for committing criminal mischief, as a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult. The court granted that motion.

[4] During the hearing, Cates testified that five of his fields had been damaged when “something had been driven through them.” Id. at 18. He further testified that beans had been “popped out of their pods” and that the corn was “flat to where [he] can't pick it up.” Id. at 19. He stated that the monetary damage to the fields was in “the vicinity of four or five hundred dollars.” Id. at 23.

[5] The State then called Thomas as a witness. Thomas testified that he was driving at the time of the traffic stop but that he had not been “driving the entire time.” Id. at 26. He also testified that he had been driving “on asphalt” but that S.G. had been driving “in the dirt.” Id. On cross-examination, S.G. elicited testimony from Thomas that he had been charged with criminal mischief related to the incident. Also on cross-examination, Thomas testified that the group “didn't drive through a cornfield or a beanfield,” but that they had only driven in “the woods.” Id. at 28-29.

[6] At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that S.G. was a delinquent child for having committed criminal mischief, as a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult. The court then placed S.G. on formal probation for six months with ninety days in detention, all suspended. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] S.G. contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent. Our standard of review is well settled:

We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile committed the charged offense. We examine only the evidence most favorable to the judgment along with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. We will affirm if there exists substanti[al] evidence of probative value to establish every material element of the offense. Further, it is the function of the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in testimony and to determine the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.

J.C. v. State, 131 N.E.3d 610, 612 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citation omitted).

[8] To support S.G.’s adjudication, the State was required to prove that he had recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damaged or defaced Cates’ property without Cates’ consent. See Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a). On appeal, S.G. does not dispute that an ATV caused damage to Cates’ corn and bean fields. However, he contends that there is insufficient evidence to prove that he is the person who drove the ATV and damaged Cates’ property. In particular, S.G. asserts that, at the time of the traffic stop, there were three individuals in the ATV; that Thomas was the person who had been driving at that time; that “not a single witness testified [that S.G] was the one who drove the vehicle in the bean field and/or corn field”; and that the State had charged Thomas with criminal mischief based on the same actions. Appellant's Br. at 16. As such, S.G. maintains that “[m]ore than likely, Thomas is the culprit[.]” Id.

[9] However, the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment supports S.G.’s adjudication. Indeed, while Thomas had been driving the ATV at the time of the traffic stop, he testified that he had not been “driving the entire time.” Tr. at 26. He also testified that he had been driving “on asphalt” but that S.G. had been driving “in the dirt.” Id. And though Thomas is the only person who testified that S.G. had driven the ATV, it is well settled that “a conviction can be sustained on only the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness[.]” Dalton v. State, 56 N.E.3d 644, 648 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.

[10] We acknowledge that Thomas did not specifically testify that S.G. had driven through the fields. But Thomas’ testimony that S.G. had driven in the dirt, coupled with the cornstalks that Deputy Harris had found on the ATV and the “fresh” damage Deputy Poletti observed in the cornfields, support a reasonable inference that S.G. had been the individual who had driven through Cates’ fields. Id. at 15. S.G.’s argument on appeal is simply a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.

Conclusion

[11] The State presented sufficient evidence to support S.G.’s adjudication as a delinquent child. We therefore affirm his adjudication.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a).

2.   The State additionally alleged that S.G. had committed resisting law enforcement and that he had consumed an alcoholic beverage as a minor. Prior to the fact-finding hearing, the allegation of resisting law enforcement was dismissed, and S.G. admitted to the allegation that he had consumed alcohol. In addition, the State charged Thomas with criminal mischief, as a Class B misdemeanor, in cause number 27D03-2409-F6-707.

Bailey, Judge.

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