MARTINEZ v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Helen Martinez was charged with and convicted of theft for stealing several items from a hospital. Martinez now appeals, raising one issue for our review: Whether the State presented sufficient evidence at trial to support Martinez's theft conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In the early morning hours of June 6, 2024, Martinez was discharged from the emergency department at Memorial Hospital of South Bend (the “Hospital”), where she had been treated for abdominal pain. Jacob Slaughter, a security officer for the Hospital, was at one of the entrances to the emergency department where he was monitoring live surveillance footage. Through the surveillance cameras, Slaughter observed Martinez exit a room in the department, “take a box of gloves,” place those gloves “under her jacket,” and then “go into the triage waiting room and sit down.” Tr. Vol. II at 18. Slaughter did not believe that Martinez had permission to take the gloves, which were the Hospital's property, so he informed the Hospital's police department Captain Benjamin Stayton of what he saw. Approximately one minute later, Captain Stayton approached Martinez where she was sitting in the waiting room. Only referring to the box of gloves, Captain Stayton told her he “needed those items back.” Id. at 42. Martinez “surrender[ed] the gloves.” Id. at 22. Captain Stayton then detained Martinez for the purpose of telling her to not return to the property. Captain Stayton handcuffed Martinez, and he and Slaughter escorted Martinez to the security booth. Martinez attempted to get away from Captain Stayton and go through a door leading to the Hospital's parking garage, she “resisted and refused to get onto the bench” in the security booth, and “she bit [Captain Stayton] on [his] left arm.” Id. at 46. Later, it was discovered that Martinez had also taken “a tourniquet, IV start kit, an IV bandage, and gauze.” Id. at 24. Slaughter was “not aware of any permission being given” for Martinez to take those items, all of which he believed were the Hospital's property. Id. at 25.

[4] The State charged Martinez with battery as a Level 5 felony,¹ resisting law enforcement as a Level 6 felony,² and theft as a Class A misdemeanor ³ . At Martinez's jury trial, Slaughter and Captain Stayton testified to the events as described above. Additionally, Captain Stayton testified that the Hospital does not supply gloves to patients nor would a staff member instruct “her to just pick up gloves on her way out,” Tr. Vol. II at 55, but he did not know if a staff member had told her to do so.

[5] Martinez testified that she had the tourniquet, IV start kit, and IV bandage, and gauze in her purse because “[t]hat's what was left from the nurse,” Tr. Vol. II at 69, and she took them “just in case if one of the bandages that they had given [her] was to come off,” id. at 70. Martinez said she “debated with [herself] if [she] was going to take some gloves,” and she decided to because she “use[s] them at home and in service of care of [her] mother, and ․ when [she] go[es] to the doctor [she] just take[s] some.” Id. at 71. Martinez acknowledged that taking the whole box was “excessive.” Id.

[6] The jury found Martinez not guilty of the battery and resisting counts, and it found her guilty as charged of theft. The trial court sentenced Martinez to two days of incarceration. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support Martinez's Theft Conviction

[7] Martinez argues that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to support her conviction for theft as a Class A misdemeanor. Our standard of review for such a claim is as follows:

“A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if ‘there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015)). This Court reviews only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom, and will reverse only where it is shown that “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)].

Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1090–91 (Ind. 2025). We do not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. Id. at 1090 (quoting Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783).

[8] In order to convict Martinez of theft as a Class A misdemeanor under Indiana Code section 35-43-4-2, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martinez knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over the gloves, tourniquet, IV start kit, IV bandage, and gauze (the “Items”); the Hospital owned the Items; and Martinez intended to deprive the Hospital of any part of the Items’ value or use. See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a). Martinez argues only that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove she exercised unauthorized control over the gloves.⁴ A person's control over another person's property is unauthorized if that control is exerted “without the other person's consent.” Id. § 35-43-4-1(b)(1).

[9] Martinez specifically contends that “neither Slaughter nor Stayton testified that they had any knowledge of whether or not Martinez had been authorized to take the box of gloves,” Appellant's Br. at 7, and that her “statement that she ‘decided to take’ the gloves on her own is not proof that she was unauthorized ․ to take the gloves if she would like,” id. at 8. Here, the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict show that Martinez “debated with [herself] if [she] was going to take some gloves,” and she decided to do so because she wanted them for personal use. Tr. Vol. II at 71. The jury could have reasonably inferred from this testimony alone that Martinez was not authorized to take the gloves. We therefore cannot say the State failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating Martinez exerted unauthorized control over the gloves. That is, the State presented sufficient evidence to support Martinez's theft conviction, so we affirm that conviction.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), (g)(5)(A).

2.   I.C. § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1), (c)(1)(B)(ii).

3.   I.C. § 35-43-4-2(a).

4.   Martinez implicitly argues that her theft conviction was only for her taking of the gloves. To the extent Martinez's theft conviction was based at least in part on her taking of the tourniquet, IV start kit, IV bandage, and gauze, Martinez has waived any challenge to her conviction for the taking of these items. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (requiring cogent reasoning); Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023) (quoting Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015)) (holding a claim may be waived for failure to comply with Indiana Appellate Rules). Nevertheless, we address the merits of Martinez's claim regarding her taking of the gloves. See Pierce, 29 N.E.3d at 1267 (stating preference for resolving cases on the merits).

Felix, Judge.

Brown, J., and Scheele, J., concur.