SMITH v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Pamela D. Smith (“Smith”) was convicted after a jury trial of assisting a criminal ¹ as a Level 6 felony and was sentenced to one year, all suspended to probation. Smith raises one issue for our review: whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support her conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 29, 2024, two Johnson County Sheriff's Department detectives were looking for Angela Clem (“Clem”) and Shelly Bruner (“Bruner”) because they had a felony arrest warrant for Bruner. The detectives received an alert regarding a vehicle associated with Bruner and Clem, which indicated that the vehicle was located at an address in Shelby County, which was the address of Bruner's residence. The detectives proceeded to the address for the purpose of executing the arrest warrant, and when they arrived, they observed a woman, later identified as Smith, unloading groceries and taking them into the residence. The detectives were joined by Johnson County Sheriff's Department Deputy James Engmark (“Deputy Engmark”), who had been dispatched to assist in executing the warrant.

[3] Deputy Engmark approached the garage through the open garage door and saw a service door from the garage to the house that had a large window. Through the window, he could see Smith standing inside. As Deputy Engmark, who was in uniform, approached the door, Smith saw him and fled further into the residence. Around this time, Shelby County Sheriff's Department Deputy Tyler Thompson (“Deputy Thompson”), whose agency had been asked to assist, also arrived at the residence. Deputy Engmark approached the garage service door, while Deputy Thompson went to the front door. They knocked and announced their presence for several minutes and received no response from inside the residence. Deputy Thompson called the Shelby County Prosecutor's Office and received authority to enter the residence to execute the warrant. The officers entered the residence through the unlocked service door and continued to announce their presence loudly; still Smith did not respond.

[4] Once inside, the officers observed groceries on the floor of the kitchen, including meat and ice cream. They continued into the residence and discovered Smith showering in the bathroom attached to the primary bedroom. Smith did not inquire as to why the police were in the residence at this time. The officers had Smith get dressed and then placed her in handcuffs and moved her to the living room, where she began loudly yelling. The officers asked her if anyone else was in the residence, and she responded “[n]ot that I know of.” Tr. Vol. 1 p. 135. The officers searched the remainder of the residence and found two bedroom doors that were padlocked from the outside hallway. As the officers moved closer to these doors, Smith yelled louder, loud enough so that anyone inside either of the bedrooms could hear her. Smith's yelling also grew louder when she was asked specifically about the keys to the padlocks.

[5] In order to access the padlocked rooms, officers used a screwdriver to remove the screws holding the padlock to the door. Inside of the first bedroom, they discovered a woman identified as Bruner. The bedroom had no access to food or water and did not have a bathroom. Smith did not act surprised when the officers found Bruner inside the locked bedroom. The padlocks were configured in such a manner that they could only be locked from the hallway, and an occupant of the bedroom could not open the door once padlocked. Officers found a set of keys in the bathroom area where Smith had been showering. The keys included the key to the padlock and the key to the vehicle Smith was driving. Smith admitted that she used the key chain containing the padlock key when she drove to Bruner's house to deliver groceries that day. Before they removed Bruner from the bedroom, the officers asked her if the woman in the living room was Clem, the other suspect they were looking for in their investigation. Bruner stated she was not and identified the woman in the living room as Smith.

[6] On August 30, 2024, the State charged Smith with Level 6 felony assisting a criminal, and a jury trial was held on March 25, 2025. The jury found Smith guilty of Level 6 felony assisting a criminal, and the trial court sentenced her to one year, all suspended to probation. Smith now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Smith argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her conviction for Level 6 felony assisting a criminal. 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).

[8] To convict Smith of Level 6 felony assisting a criminal, the State was required to prove that she was “not standing in the relation of parent, child, or spouse” to Bruner, who had committed Level 6 felony theft or was a fugitive from justice, and that Smith acted with intent to hinder the apprehension or punishment of Bruner and harbored, concealed, or otherwise assisted Bruner. Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-5(a)(1)(A); Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 58. “[T]he assisting a criminal statute was intended to apply to people who did not actively participate in the crime itself, but who did assist a criminal after he or she committed a crime.” Hauk v. State, 729 N.E.2d 994, 999 (Ind. 2000). For purposes of the statute, “harbor means ‘to shelter, to give refuge, to lodge, care for and protect’; conceal means ‘to hide, secrete [sic], to keep out of sight, or prevent the discovery of’; and assist ‘contemplates some positive, affirmative act intended to help or aid someone to escape arrest, capture or punishment.’ ” Jacobs v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1175, 1178–79 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (citations omitted).

[9] Smith concedes that she is not related to Bruner and that Bruner had an outstanding warrant for felony theft. However, she argues that the State failed to prove that she harbored, concealed, or assisted Bruner and that Smith intended to hinder the apprehension of Bruner. However, Smith's arguments are requests to reweigh the evidence, which under our deferential standard of review we will not do. Gibson, 51 N.E.3d at 210.

[10] The evidence most favorable to the verdict established that, when the police entered the residence, the only two occupants were Smith and Bruner. Bruner was discovered in a bedroom that had been locked with a padlock from the outside. The bedroom had no access to food, water, or a bathroom so the jury could reasonably conclude that Bruner only intended to occupy the room for a short period of time. Smith did not act surprised when Bruner was discovered inside the room, and Smith had the key to the padlock on the keychain found in the bathroom where Smith was showering. Smith also admitted that she had used the key chain when she drove to Bruner's residence to deliver groceries.

[11] The evidence also revealed that, when Deputy Engmark initially approached the garage, he observed Smith through the window on the service door, and when she saw him, Smith fled into the interior of the residence. The officers knocked and announced their presence for several minutes, and nobody answered even though Smith was inside the residence. After the officers entered and found Smith in the shower, she did not ask why they were there. Instead, when Smith was placed in the living room, she became loud and her yelling became louder as the officers approached the room where Bruner was found. The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to allow the jury to reasonably conclude that Smith helped conceal and hide Bruner to keep her from being apprehended by the police. We, therefore, conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support her conviction for Level 6 felony assisting a criminal.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-5(a)(1)(A).

Foley, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J. and Weissmann, J., concur.