EYER v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Karen Marie Eyer (“Eyer”) was convicted after a bench trial of criminal mischief ¹ as a Class B misdemeanor. Eyer appeals her conviction, arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her conviction. Finding that sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Robert Tauberschmidt (“Tauberschmidt”) is Eyer's son. In April 2025, he and his mother resided together in a mobile home in Greenwood, Indiana. Tauberschmidt is the primary owner of the mobile home, with his mother listed as an additional owner. When he purchased the mobile home, Tauberschmidt was the sole resident, and Eyer moved in at the end of 2023.

[3] Tauberschmidt installed a security camera system, which he had purchased as a kit from Amazon, inside the mobile home after Eyer moved in. The cameras were installed while Eyer was incarcerated, and although Tauberschmidt did not ask for her consent to install the cameras, he did make her aware that he had installed them. The cameras were installed in Tauberschmidt's bedroom, the living room, and the kitchen but none were installed in Eyer's room. Eyer expressed to Tauberschmidt that she did not like the cameras and asked him to take them down. Tauberschmidt refused and explained to her that the cameras were installed for security reasons.

[4] When Tauberschmidt did not remove the cameras, Eyer began to adjust the positioning of the cameras. Eyer would also unplug them and did so with such frequency that Tauberschmidt rerouted the camera wires to his locked bedroom. On the previous occasions that Eyer moved the cameras, she had used her hand or a broom. Tauberschmidt had previously confronted her about moving the cameras and asked her to leave them alone.

[5] On April 25, 2024, when Tauberschmidt came home from work, he noticed that the security camera installed in his kitchen was no longer properly mounted to the wall but was instead dangling by its wires from the base. Upon closer inspection, Tauberschmidt observed that the metal arm connecting the camera to the base plate was snapped. Because of this damage, the camera could no longer be aimed in a fixed direction. Although the camera was still able to record audio and visual signals, it just dangled by the wires from the mounted base plate. Tauberschmidt testified that, because of the damage, the camera, while operable, was no longer functional.

[6] Eyer was not present when Tauberschmidt arrived home from work. After noticing the damage, Tauberschmidt accessed the camera's recorded video footage on his phone and observed Eyer grabbing what appeared to be a broom and approaching the camera, and then the camera is knocked out of view. State's Ex. 2. The video footage showed Eyer purposefully walking up to the camera and hitting it with a broom until it fell from its original position. Id.

[7] After discovering the damage, Tauberschmidt took a photograph of the damaged camera and made a police report, submitting the video footage to the police. When Eyer arrived home later that evening, Tauberschmidt confronted her about breaking the camera. Eyer denied breaking the camera and claimed that she just moved it. Tauberschmidt estimated the cost to replace the camera to be around forty dollars plus shipping costs of eight to twelve dollars, for a total of approximately fifty dollars in restitution.

[8] On May 31, 2024, the State charged Eyer with Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief. On December 31, 2024, the trial court conducted a bench trial. At trial, the State presented testimony from Tauberschmidt and the responding officer. The State admitted into evidence the photograph Tauberschmidt took of the damaged camera and the video footage showing Eyer hitting the camera with the broom. State's Exs. 1, 2. Officer Ryan Christopher Patrick (“Officer Patrick”) of the Greenwood Police Department testified that when Tauberschmidt made the police report, the officer observed a photograph of the camera, which appeared to be damaged, but did not personally see the physical damage to the camera. After the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found Eyer guilty of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief. As a sentence, Eyer was ordered to pay court costs, fees, and restitution but was not ordered to serve a term of incarceration or probation. Eyer now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Eyer argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her conviction. When there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Gibson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 204, 210 (Ind. 2016), cert. denied. Instead, we consider only that evidence most favorable to the judgment together with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. “We will affirm the judgment if it is supported by substantial evidence of probative value even if there is some conflict in that evidence.” Id. Further, “[w]e will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

[10] To convict Eyer of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, the State was required to prove that she recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damaged or defaced Tauberschmidt's security camera without his consent. Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a). A person engages in conduct “recklessly” if the person “engages in the conduct in plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm that might result, and the disregard involves a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2(c). A person engages in conduct “knowingly” if, when the person engages in the conduct, he or she is “aware of a high probability” that he or she is doing so. I.C. § 35-41-2-2(b). A person engages in conduct “intentionally” if, when the person engages in the conduct, it is his or her “conscious objective to do so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2(a).

[11] Eyer argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove she committed criminal mischief. Specifically, she contends that the evidence did not prove that she acted recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally because, although the video showed her moving the camera with the broom, it did not show that she acted maliciously or with enough force to cause damage. She further argues that there was no corroborating evidence to prove that the camera was damaged because the camera itself was not produced at trial.

[12] In support of her argument, Eyer relies on R.L.H. v. State, 738 N.E.2d 312 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), where, on appeal, this court found insufficient evidence to prove criminal mischief where the evidence established that someone threw a brick through the victim's window but did not establish whether R.L.H. or his co-defendant, both of whom were at the scene, threw the brick. Id. at 316–17. However, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from R.L.H. Here, the evidence established that Eyer hit the camera with a broom, breaking the part of the camera that attached it to the base and making it impossible to position or aim the camera. Unlike R.L.H., where there was insufficient evidence to identify the perpetrator, here, there was no speculation as to who caused the damage to the camera as the video footage showed Eyer hitting the camera with the broom.

[13] The evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment established that Eyer did not like the cameras and had expressed that dislike to Tauberschmidt. The video evidence showed that, on the date of the crime, Eyer took a broom, walked up to the camera, and hit the camera with the broom until the camera fell from its original position. When Tauberschmidt got home that day, he discovered the camera installed in the kitchen was no longer properly mounted to the wall and was dangling from its wires from the base, which upon closer inspection was due to the fact that the metal arm connecting the camera to the base plate was snapped. As a result of this damage, the camera could no longer be aimed in any particular direction, losing a critical part of its function.

[14] Contrary to Eyer's argument, the State did not have to prove that she acted maliciously, but instead, that she acted recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally. Therefore, at the least, in order to prove that she acted recklessly, the evidence must have revealed that she engaged in “the conduct in plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm that might result” and the disregard involved “a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct.” See I.C. § 35-41-2-2(c). The evidence presented established that Eyer did not like the cameras, had repeatedly asked for them to be taken down, and had previously moved and unplugged them. The video evidence showed her purposefully hitting the camera with the broom until it fell from its original position. Given the damage to the camera, Eyer would have had to have hit it with sufficient force to break the metal arm securing it to the base. From this evidence, the trial court could have reasonably inferred that Eyer was upset about the camera and consciously hit the camera with the broom causing it to break and did so with plain, conscious and unjustifiable disregard for the damage that would be caused by hitting it with the broom. Therefore, sufficient evidence was presented to support that Eyer damaged or defaced with the required mens rea.

[15] As for Eyer's argument that no evidence was produced to show that the camera was in fact damaged, this is merely a request to reweigh the evidence. At trial, Tauberschmidt testified that the camera was damaged with the arm of the camera broken from the base when he came home from work. Further, Tauberschmidt took a picture of the damaged camera which was admitted into evidence and clearly depicted damage to the camera, and the officer confirmed viewing Tauberschmidt's picture of a damaged camera. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to establish that the camera was in fact damaged. We, therefore, conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Eyer's conviction for criminal mischief.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a).

Foley, Judge.

Kenworthy, J. and Scheele, J., concur.