Tanner Allen Overton, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Tanner Allen Overton appeals his conviction for theft as a level 6 felony and claims the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Frederick Berchie managed Vanna African Market, a grocery store, in South Bend. Berchie and his brother “decided to do a recycle business by acquiring used clothing and used equipment and shipping them to Africa,” they “were looking for equipment to buy to be able to use for the recycling of the clothing,” and they purchased “a baler,” which was “used ․ to compress” and was “like a recycling compactor,” for approximately $12,000. Transcript Volume II at 20. Berchie and his brother transported the baler to Vanna African Market and “thought it would fit into the ․ back door, but ․ realized it was too high.” Id. at 21. “Because [they] could not move it in, [they] put it at the back of the door” “[r]ight behind the door that goes into the shop.” Id.

[3] On September 29, 2024, Overton, Taylor Hires, “and [Hires's] three kids were ․ driving around because [her] daughter said something about wanting to like dumpster dive because she seen [sic] it on TikTok.” Id. at 29. At approximately 9:45 p.m. when it was dark outside, Overton walked around and looked at the baler while Hires looked at a dumpster. They eventually left the area. At approximately 6:40 a.m. the following morning when it was still dark outside, Overton returned to Vanna African Market with a trailer. Overton and another person loaded the baler onto the trailer. Overton took the machine to a scrap yard, and “they paid [him] for the scrap.” Id. at 37. A recording taken from a security camera behind the store shows Overton taking the baler.

[4] The State charged Overton with theft as a level 6 felony. The court held a jury trial. The State played the recordings taken from the security camera. The recording shows that the bottom portion of the baler was wrapped in cellophane. Berchie testified that neither he nor his brother gave anyone permission to take the baler. When asked, “[w]hat's the reason for the cellophane around the bottom, the wrapping around the bottom,” Berchie testified, “[t]hat is when we were transporting it. That's what we used to wrap around the whole equipment. So when we came in, we took the top one off trying to see if it would fit into the door.” Id. at 25-26.

[5] Hires testified with respect to the baler: “It looked like a piece of scrap. It looked like someone had set it out. I thought it was trash.” Id. at 30. When asked, “[s]o the machine was not over by the dumpsters and other trash,” she replied, “[t]here was no other dumpster next to the -- whatever the compactor.” Id. at 31. When asked, “there were dumpsters somewhere else in the area,” she replied, “[y]eah, there's other stores.” Id. When asked, “this machine was not over by those dumpsters,” she answered “[n]o,” and when asked, “there was no dumpster back by where the machine was sitting,” she replied, “[c]orrect.” Id. at 32. Overton, when asked “is there a reason that you didn't go to the store and ask someone if you could take the machine,” testified “[l]ooking at the back of the store, ․ it doesn't say nothing about no trespassing,” “[i]t's on public property, behind the store or whatever,” “I figured it was trash being about fifteen feet away from dumpsters,” “I didn't think it was like anything,” and “I couldn't even tell what it was.” Id. at 38. He testified, “There was one sign that said no dumping. That was it.” Id. He stated, “I scrapped it. It was not the intent to steal it.” Id. at 39. The jury found Overton guilty of theft as a level 6 felony.

Discussion

[6] When reviewing claims of insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995), reh'g denied. We look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id. We will affirm the conviction if there exists evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[7] Overton argues “[b]oth [he] and [Hires] testified that the baler appeared to them to be abandoned property, and as such Overton was authorized to exercise control over it.” Appellant's Brief at 13. He argues his “conduct in removing and scrapping the baler was entirely consistent with a belief by him that the baler had been abandoned.” Id. at 14. He asserts “[t]he record is devoid of evidence that would support the inference that [he] was aware of a ‘high probability’ that his removing the baler was unauthorized.” Id. at 15.

[8] Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2 provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, and that the offense is a level 6 felony if the value of the property is at least seven hundred fifty dollars and less than fifty thousand dollars. A person engages in conduct “knowingly” if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2. Because knowledge is the mental state of the actor, the trier of fact must resort to reasonable inferences of its existence. Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d 878, 883 (Ind. 2017) (citing Young v. State, 761 N.E.2d 387, 389 (Ind. 2002)).

[9] The evidence reveals that Overton walked around and examined the baler behind Vanna African Market at approximately 9:45 p.m. and then returned with a trailer at about 6:40 a.m. the next morning to retrieve the baler. The jury heard testimony and saw the security camera recordings regarding the appearance of the baler and its location relative to the back door of Vanna African Market and the dumpsters. The jury was able to determine the credibility of Overton and the other witnesses and weigh the testimony and evidence. We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Based upon the record, we conclude the State presented evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Overton committed theft as a level 6 felony.

[10] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Overton's conviction.

[11] Affirmed.

Brown, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.