SMITH v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Jamie Smith was convicted of criminal mischief, a Class B misdemeanor. Smith argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Issue

[2] Smith raises one issue, which we restate as: whether sufficient evidence supports his conviction for criminal mischief.

Facts

[3] On July 19, 2020, Delores Alderman (“Alderman”) and her husband (collectively, “the Aldermans”) were at their home in Marion County. In the late evening, while the Aldermans were lying in bed and watching the late-night news, they heard a loud noise coming from the back of their house. Alderman looked out her back window and saw four or five people standing underneath the streetlight by a vehicle.

[4] When Alderman went downstairs and out on the porch to see what was going on, one of the people, a man, had traveled down the alley with a cinder block in hand. The man threw the cinder block at the Aldermans’ car, which was driven by their son. It hit the windshield, bounced, and broke through the windshield on the second impact. Alderman could see this interaction because their car was parked under a streetlight. Alderman asked what the man was doing, and he yelled back at her and took off running. Alderman went back upstairs to call the police.

[5] The State charged Smith with criminal mischief, a Class B misdemeanor, on August 12, 2020. At a bench trial, Alderman testified that she recognized Smith because he frequently visited the neighbors who lived directly behind Alderman, and Alderman had prior interactions with Smith. Alderman further testified that Smith (and others who frequented the rear neighbor's house) would yell at drivers going down the alley and block the alley with vehicles. During cross-examination, Alderman was impeached with her 911 call, in which she said that the man who threw the cinder block “may have been a black man, but [she was] not sure.” Tr. Vol. II p. 33. Smith is a Caucasian man. Officer Michael Hupp with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department testified that he responded to the scene, and the suspect was “[a] white male ․ that allegedly frequented the house on Nelson Street behind the address that [he] was dispatched to.” Id. at 41. Further, Smith testified that he was in the alley with a group of friends at the time of the incident. He said that his friend, D.J., who is also Caucasian, threw the cinder block.

[6] The trial court found Smith guilty on February 3, 2026.¹ The trial court sentenced Smith to 166 days of probation. The trial court also ordered Smith to pay restitution. Smith now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Smith argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction for criminal mischief. Sufficiency of the evidence claims warrant a deferential standard of review in which we “neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the [fact-finder].” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024). 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.” Id. In conducting this review, we consider only the evidence that supports the fact-finder's determination, not evidence that might undermine it. Id. We affirm the conviction “ ‘unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.’ ” Sutton v. State, 167 N.E.3d 800, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007)).

[8] The trial court convicted Smith of criminal mischief pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-43-1-2(a),² which provides:

A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damages or defaces property of another person without the other person's consent commits criminal mischief, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is:

(1) a Class A misdemeanor if the pecuniary loss is at least seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) but less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000);

* * * * *

[9] Smith argues that the evidence the State presented failed to establish his identity because, during the 911 call, Alderman said the person who threw the cinder block may have been Black, but Smith is Caucasian. Smith argues that we should follow Richardson v. State, 388 N.E.2d 488 (Ind. 1979), in which our Supreme Court held that testimony from a sole eyewitness identifying the defendant, where no other direct or circumstantial evidence connected the defendant to the crime, must be unequivocal. 388 N.E.2d at 491.

[10] “[J]udging the credibility of witnesses is the province of the [fact-finder] and a court will impinge on that responsibility only in those rare cases where a sole witness presents inherently contradictory testimony that is equivocal or the result of coercion and there is a complete lack of circumstantial evidence of the appellant's guilt.” Reed v. State, 748 N.E.2d 381, 395-96 (Ind. 2001). We note, however, that “[i]nconsistencies in identification testimony go only to the weight of that testimony; it is the task of the jury to weigh the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses.” Emerson v. State, 724 N.E.2d 605, 610 (Ind. 2000). “This Court does not weigh the evidence or resolve questions of credibility when determining whether the identification evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction.” Id.

[11] Here Alderman testified unequivocally that she knew Smith from their interactions in the neighborhood and that she observed him throw the cinder block under a streetlight. Further, Officer Hupp testified that the Aldermans identified the suspect as a Caucasian male. Alderman's impeachment with her statement during the 911 call about Smith's race does not erase her testimony and personal knowledge of Smith.³ See, e.g., Murray v. State, 761 N.E.2d 406, 409 (Ind. 2002) (“Although Jackson's trial testimony was inconsistent in some respects with his pre-trial statement, it was not equivocal, and Jackson did not contradict himself on the witness stand. The fact that a witness gives trial testimony that contradicts earlier pre-trial statements does not necessarily render the trial testimony incredibly dubious.”).

[12] Smith's argument is merely a request for us to reweigh the evidence and reevaluate Alderman's credibility which we cannot do. The trial court could reasonably have found that Smith threw the cinder block at the Aldermans’ car. Accordingly, sufficient evidence supports Smith's conviction for criminal mischief.⁴

Conclusion

[13] We conclude that sufficient evidence was submitted to support Smith's conviction for criminal mischief. We affirm.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   There is a gap in the chronological case summary between October 2021 to May 2025. The record does not provide a reason for this gap. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 9.

2.   The statute was later amended on July 1, 2026. We use the version of the statute in effect at the time of the offense.

3.   Smith also argues that the evidence indicates that one of his friends threw the cinder block. Again, this is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we cannot do.

4.   The 911 call was not admitted at trial and was only used for impeachment. The State argues that the 911 call cannot be substantive evidence. We agree. At trial, Smith indicated that the 911 recording was only being used to impeach Alderman. Tr. Vol. II p. 32. “Evidence admitted only for impeachment may not be used as substantive evidence.” Lawrence v. State, 959 N.E.2d 385, 389 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. Even if the testimony regarding the 911 call was substantive evidence, Smith's argument still requests that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.

Tavitas, Chief Judge.

Bradford, J., and Felix, J., concur.