John E. Braun, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In November 2024, a conservation officer discovered John Braun hunting for deer with the aid of bait—a nearby pile of corn. Braun told the officer that he had placed the corn there in September, had never picked it up, and had killed two deer in that same location in October. For this, John Braun was charged with Class A misdemeanor unlawful taking of a deer as to his October conduct, and Class C misdemeanor hunting deer with the aid of bait as to his November conduct. Following a bench trial, Braun was convicted as charged.

[2] Braun appeals only his conviction for the October unlawful taking of a deer, contending the State failed to establish the corpus delicti of the offense—proof that a crime had actually been committed—independent of his own admissions and confessions. We affirm.

Facts

[3] On the morning of November 2, 2024, Braun was hunting from a deer stand. He was approached by a conservation officer from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) who was conducting hunting checks. The officer asked for Braun's hunting license, and Braun explained that he left it at home. He then offered that he had “shot a couple does so far.” State's Exh. 5 at 1:27-29. The officer collected some personal information from Braun to verify that he had a license and then asked, “Any luck this year?” Id. at 2:02-04. Braun repeated that he “got a couple does ․ two weeks ago” and had shot them from the same stand that he was hunting from that day. Id. at 2:03-06. Braun then pointed out where he had shot the deer, roughly 20 yards from the stand.

[4] The officer then asked Braun what he had put out to bait the deer, and Braun responded that he had placed corn on the ground by the stand in September. The two walked over to where the corn was placed and observed corn still on the ground. The officer explained that bait had to be removed at least 10 days before hunting was permitted in that area. Braun acknowledged that he had never cleared the corn and had walked by it earlier that day on his way to the stand. The corn was approximately 23 steps away from Braun's deer stand.

[5] When the officer asked about the two deer Braun had shot two weeks before, Braun showed him a picture on his phone, timestamped October 19, 2024, at 12:05pm, of the two does. The officer confirmed through DNR records that Braun had reported harvesting two deer on that date.

[6] The State later charged Braun with two offenses: (1) unlawful taking of a deer on October 19, elevated to a Class A misdemeanor because of Braun's prior conviction for unlawful taking; and (2) Class C misdemeanor hunting of deer with the aid of bait on November 2. At Braun's bench trial, the DNR officer testified as to his conversation with Braun and observation of the hunting site. The officer recalled that Braun admitted he put the corn out in September, did not clean it up, and killed two deer in October from his stand.

[7] Braun objected to the officer's testimony, arguing there had been no “corpus delicti shown” because there was no independent evidence showing that a crime had been committed on October 19, beyond Bruan's own admissions. Tr. Vol. II, p. 9. The State responded that such argument could be more appropriately considered after further evidence was submitted. The trial court overruled Braun's objection.

[8] The State then introduced into evidence Braun's photo of the deer he shot on October 19, the DNR report Braun submitted as to those two deer he harvested, a picture of the corn on the ground captured November 2, and the body camera footage captured by the DNR officer of his conversation with Braun during the November 2 hunting check. Braun raised a continuing objection to all evidence on the basis that there was no corpus delicti—that is, no proof independent of his confession that a crime had been committed on October 19.

[9] After the presentation of evidence, Braun again raised his argument that there was no independent proof of corpus delicti to find him guilty of the Class A misdemeanor illegal taking of a deer on October 19. The trial court disagreed and convicted Braun of both offenses.

Discussion and Decision

[10] On appeal, Braun renews his corpus delicti challenge to his conviction for illegal taking of a deer on October 19. “In Indiana, a person may not be convicted of a crime based solely on a nonjudicial confession of guilt.” Shinnock v. State, 76 N.E.3d 841, 843 (Ind. 2017). Instead, independent proof of the corpus delicti—proof that “the specific crime charge has actually been committed by someone”—is required before the defendant may be convicted based on a nonjudicial confession. Id. (quoting Walker v. State, 233 N.E.2d 483, 488 (Ind. 1968)). The primary functions of this rule are to reduce the risk of convicting a defendant based on his confession for a crime that did not occur, prevent coercive interrogation tactics, and encourage thorough investigations. See Johnson v. State, 653 N.E.2d 478, 479 n.1 (Ind. 1995). However, this rule's “efficacy in meeting these objectives has been seriously questioned.” Id. (citing Willoughby v. State, 552 N.E.2d 462, 466 (Ind. 1990)).

[11] There are two types of corpus delicti arguments: (1) challenges to the admissibility of a confession; and (2) challenges to the evidence supporting a conviction. See Shinnock, 76 N.E.3d at 844. “The corpus delicti evidence required to have a confession admitted is not the same as the corpus delicti evidence required to sustain a conviction.” Id. These are distinct but related inquiries, as the analysis of the evidence supporting the conviction often depends on the admissibility of the confession into evidence. See Harkrader v. State, 553 N.E.2d 1231, 1232 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (finding defendant had implicitly challenged the admissibility of his confession when arguing the State failed to establish corpus delicti to support his conviction) (cited with approval by Shinnock, 76 N.E.3d at 844).

[12] Though Braun is not clear as to which of these arguments he makes, we understand him to raise both.¹ Finding independent evidence permits the admission of his statements and sufficient evidence supports his conviction, we affirm.

I. Admission of Braun's Statements

[13] We review a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion and reverse “only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Shinnock, 76 N.E.3d at 843.

[14] The admission of a confession “requires some independent evidence of commission of the crime charged.” Id. Such evidence must “merely provide an inference that the crime charged was committed,” and that inference may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Id. The independent evidence need not “demonstrate prima facie proof as to each element of the charged offense.” Johnson, 653 N.E.2d at 480.

[15] Here, Braun provided admissions to the officer as to each element of the offense.² He first told the DNR officer that he had shot two deer in October from the same hunting stand where he had been hunting that day in November. This admission was corroborated by two pieces of independent evidence: (1) the picture of the two harvested deer, time stamped October 19; and (2) a DNR report filed on October 19 showing Braun harvested two deer that same day. Braun suggests that because he originally filed the DNR report and took the picture, both pieces of evidence constitute confessions and cannot serve as independent evidence to support the corpus delicti. But he cites no authority to support such proposition. Both the photograph and the report were generated weeks earlier and outside the context of Braun's interaction with the officer, supporting their reliability as independent evidence. See id. at 479 n.1 (noting that one purpose of corpus delicti is preventing coercive interrogation tactics).

[16] Braun also told the DNR officer that he had placed corn on the ground by the stand in September and never picked it up. This admission was corroborated by the independent evidence of the officer's direct observations of the hunting scene and the corn still on the ground on November 2, in the exact place that Braun had earlier placed it. The officer took a picture of the corn on the ground that day, and that picture was admitted at trial along with the officer's body camera footage.

[17] The independent evidence presented—the photograph of the deer, the DNR harvest records, the photograph of the corn on the ground, and the officer's own perceptions of the scene—permit the reasonable inference that the crime of killing a deer with the aid of bait had occurred. The evidence “need not preclude every possible explanation of the circumstances.” Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 112 (Ind. 1998); see also Harkrader v. State, 553 N.E.2d 1231, 1233–34 (finding corpus delicti established when evidence that codefendant possessed controlled substance supported inference that delivery of that substance to her had occurred, though codefendant may have found or manufactured the pills herself). Therefore, the State has established sufficient corpus delicti to support admission of Braun's statements.

II. Sufficiency of Evidence Supporting the Conviction

[18] In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses but consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and the reasonable inferences arising therefrom. Seal v. State, 105 N.E.3d 201, 211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). We affirm “if there is substantial evidence of probative value such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009)).

[19] Braun was convicted of Class A misdemeanor unlawful taking of deer. As charged, the State was required to prove that on October 19, Braun took a deer with the aid of bait. See Ind. Code § 14-22-6-1 (prohibiting taking of wild animal except as provided by fish and wildlife rules); 312 Ind. Administrative Code § 9-3-2(x) (fish and wildlife rule prohibiting the taking of deer “with use or aid of bait ․ including a pile of corn”). When a conviction relies on a defendant's confession, “the corpus delicti must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” meaning there must be independent evidence that a crime actually occurred. Shinnock, 76 N.E.3d at 844 (quoting Harkrader, 553 N.E2d at 1232-33). “In determining the sufficiency of the evidence for conviction, the confession may be considered along with the independent evidence.” Id. (same).

[20] Here, viewing all the evidence favorable to the State, including Braun's admissions, the State proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. That deer were taken on October 19 was established by: (1) the photograph of two harvested deer, time-stamped October 19, 2024; (2) the DNR record submitted later that day reporting that Braun harvested two deer on that date; and (3) Braun's statements to the officer that he took two deer on October 19. That corn was present near the hunting location was established by: (1) the officer's observation of corn on the ground on November 2, just 23 paces from Braun's tree stand; (2) a photograph of that corn; (3) and Braun's statements that he placed that corn there in September and never removed it. These facts, together with Braun's statements, established that the deer were taken with the aid of bait on October 19.

[21] Considering Braun's admissions in conjunction with the independent corroborating evidence, the State presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed on October 19 and that Braun was the person who committed that crime. We therefore affirm Braun's conviction for unlawfully taking deer with the aid of bait.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Braun frames his single issue on appeal as whether the State presented “sufficient independent evidence of corpus delicti for a conviction as to Count 1.” Appellant's Br., pp. 2, 4. But he then claims his “statements should not have been admitted into evidence,” and cites caselaw on the admissibility of confessions. Id. at 10. He ultimately requests this Court reverse his conviction “for lack of sufficient evidence.” Id. at 10. Though his brief could have been clearer, we understand him to challenge both the admission of his confession and the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction.

2.   The State emphasizes that Braun's statements were admissions, not confessions, relying in part on Fouts v. State, 207 N.E.3d 1257, 1266 n.5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). See id. (explaining that a confession includes “all the necessary elements of the crime,” while an admission “merely admits some fact which tends to connect the defendant with the alleged offense”). However, Fouts held that this distinction “is immaterial to issues of corpus delicti since our case law applies the corpus delicti requirement to the introduction of admissions as well as confessions.” Id. at 1266 n.5 (citing Watts v. State, 95 N.E.2d 570, 579 (Ind. 1950)).

Weissmann, Judge.

Bradford, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.