BELTRAN v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Heather Beltran appeals her conviction for Class A misdemeanor misuse of 911 service.¹ She alleges the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support her conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Lieutenant Nathaniel Stahl of the Kendallville Police Department was on patrol on the morning of December 25, 2023, when he came across a parked vehicle near the entrance of a mobile home park in Noble County. Lt. Stahl ran the “very weathered and obstructed” temporary license plate through Bureau of Motor Vehicles’ (“BMV”) records. Tr. Vol. 2 at 111. The BMV records connected the license plate to a car with an expired registration not matching the make and model of the parked vehicle. Because the parked vehicle was unoccupied, Lt. Stahl continued his patrol duties.

[3] Later that morning, Lt. Stahl spotted the same car on the road—this time with Beltran behind the wheel. He subsequently conducted a traffic stop because he “believed [the plate] was false and fictitious.” Id. at 114. Beltran pulled over to the side of the road; Lt. Stahl parked behind her. As he approached Beltran's vehicle on foot, Lt. Stahl recognized her from a previous incident when she called emergency services. He also noticed he had earlier mistaken one of the numbers on the temporary plate. Correcting the mistake, he ran the plate a second time, and BMV records returned a registration matching the car and identifying Beltran as the owner.

[4] Lt. Stahl informed Beltran of the “terrible shape” of her vehicle's plate. Id. at 115. Beltran appeared “irritable” and “[e]rratic,” and she refused to believe there were any issues with the car's plate. Id. at 116. Lt. Stahl permitted Beltran to observe the plate herself. After returning to her seat, Beltran failed to provide a current registration for the plate or proof of insurance.

[5] Approximately ten minutes into Lt. Stahl's initial stop of Beltran, Officer Robert Kline and his K9 partner, Bobi, arrived at the scene. Bobi was trained to identify narcotics. Officer Kline informed Beltran that Bobi would be conducting an open-air sniff of the vehicle. Beltran told Officer Kline he would not be doing so, and she would call his supervisor. Officer Kline informed her Lt. Stahl was his supervisor. Officer Kline retrieved Bobi from the patrol car and began the open-air sniff. Upon reaching the driver's door, Bobi lunged at the car. Beltran accused Officer Kline of directing Bobi to lunge at the vehicle. Officer Kline initiated the open-air sniff again and Bobi quickly gave a positive alert.

[6] Following the positive alert, Lt. Stahl had Beltran exit the vehicle so the officers could conduct a search. Beltran told Lt. Stahl she hoped he was “proud of [himself]” and called the situation “[b]ullshit.” Id. at 117. She notified Lt. Stahl there was a safe with a firearm in the car, and she wore the key to the safe around her neck. After several requests by Lt. Stahl, Beltran agreed to unlock the safe. Beltran opened the safe and promptly closed it, without giving the officers the chance to examine its contents. When asked to open the safe again, Beltran refused. Lt. Stahl confiscated the safe and walked to his patrol car. Beltran remained near her car.

[7] As Lt. Stahl tried to force open the safe, Beltran called 911 emergency services. She claimed she “did not feel safe with these officers.” Ex. Vol. 3, page 5 at 00:36–00:39 (911 call recording). Yet Beltran did not provide her name to the emergency dispatcher and “wanted to argue the premise of the traffic stop and the officer's conduct of the stop.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 167–68. The dispatcher told Beltran her call was a misuse of emergency services and terminated the call. The dispatcher then informed Lt. Stahl of Beltran's phone call. Lt. Stahl approached Beltran and asked why she called 911; she did not provide an answer. Lt. Stahl arrested Beltran for misuse of 911. After conducting a body search, Stahl retrieved a “container with a waxy substance” from Beltran's pants pocket believed to contain marijuana. Id. at 122.

[8] The State charged Beltran with placing a call to 911 for a prohibited purpose; possession of marijuana; and possession of paraphernalia. During Beltran's jury trial, Lt. Stahl, Officer Kline, and the emergency services dispatcher testified to the above events. The State also submitted into evidence Lt. Stahl's bodycam footage depicting his interactions with Beltran as well as audio of her call to emergency services. In addition, Lt. Stahl testified to his previous interaction with Beltran in 2021 when he responded to an incident involving Beltran and her husband. On that occasion, Lt. Stahl explained to Beltran “she cannot be calling 911, tying up 911 services” and warned her he would arrest her if she “called 911 a second time.” Id. at 128. After the close of evidence, the State moved to dismiss the possession of marijuana charge. The jury found Beltran not guilty of possession of paraphernalia and guilty of misuse of 911 service.

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Beltran guilty of misuse of 911 service.

[9] 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)).

[10] Indiana Code Section 36-8-16.7-46(1) makes it a Class A misdemeanor for a person to “knowingly ․ place[ ] a 911 call” for “a purpose other than obtaining public safety assistance or emergency” services. A person engages in conduct knowingly if, when she engages in the conduct, she is aware of a high probability she is doing so. See I.C. § 35-41-2-2(b) (1977). Knowledge is a mental state and, “absent an admission by the defendant, the jury must resort to the reasonable inferences from both the direct and circumstantial evidence to determine whether the defendant has the requisite knowledge ․ to commit the offense in question.” Stubbers v. State, 190 N.E.3d 424, 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied.

[11] Here, Beltran argues she called 911 because she was in “fear for her physical safety due to her interaction” with Lt. Stahl and Officer Kline. Appellant's Br. at 11. Beltran maintains she had “good reason to be afraid” in part because the officers put her in danger by “ordering her to open the safe” containing her firearm. Id. She made similar arguments in her opening and closing statements to the jury.

[12] At Beltran's trial, the jury heard from Lt. Stahl, Officer Kline, and the 911 dispatcher, all of whom testified about their interactions with her. When Lt. Stahl pulled Beltran over, she was irritable and erratic. She argued with him about the conditions of her car's license plate. When Officer Kline arrived, she told him he could not conduct an open-air sniff and accused him of ordering Bobi to lunge at her car. She told Lt. Stahl she hoped he was proud of himself and called the situation “bullshit” when asked to exit the vehicle after Bobi alerted. The jury heard from the 911 dispatcher who answered Beltran's phone call and testified that from his perspective “there wasn't an emergency situation.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 167. And despite a past warning regarding the inappropriate use of emergency services, Beltran “just wanted to argue the premise of the traffic stop and the officer's conduct” during the stop. Id. at 167–68.

[13] In the end, the jury weighed the evidence and assessed the credibility of the witnesses. They heard Beltran tell the 911 dispatcher she “did not feel safe with these officers.” Ex. Vol. 3, page 5 at 00:36–00:39 (911 recording). But the jury apparently did not find her explanation credible. Based on the officers’ testimony regarding her behavior during the stop, her history of 911 calls, and the 911 dispatcher's assessment, a reasonable juror could have found Beltran called 911 for a purpose other than obtaining public safety assistance or emergency services. See Stubbers, 190 N.E.3d at 432 (“Knowledge ․ may be proven by the defendant's conduct and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically and reasonably points.”).

Conclusion

[14] There was sufficient evidence to find Beltran guilty of misuse of 911 service.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 36-8-16.7-46 (2012).

Kenworthy, Judge.

Foley, J., and Scheele, J., concur.