Shau-Ri Rose, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Shau-Ri Rose nearly hit two children trying to board their school bus when she disregarded the bus's warning lights and stop arm, opting instead to drive on the shoulder of the road between the bus and the children. A jury found Rose guilty of two counts of criminal recklessness. Rose now appeals and raises one issue for our review: Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support her convictions.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Shortly before 7:42 a.m. on March 18, 2025, J.H. and R.Z. (collectively, the “Children”) were waiting for their school bus at the end of a driveway on Ash Road in Osceola, Indiana. Ash Road is a two-lane road, and when the bus picks up the Children in the morning, the bus's doors face the driveway where they wait; only the shoulder of Ash Road separates the bus from the driveway.

[4] When the bus was approximately 400 feet away from where the Children were waiting, the bus driver activated the bus's warning lights and began slowing down. Rose was driving behind the bus at this time. The bus came to a stop in front of the Children, and its warning lights switched from yellow to red and its stop arm extended as the bus driver opened the doors. Rose did not stop for the bus. Instead, she passed the bus on the shoulder of Ash Road—directly between the bus and the Children.

[5] R.Z. saw Rose's vehicle but believed Rose “was going to stop,” Tr. Vol. II at 16, so she started walking toward the bus as its doors opened. As previously mentioned, Rose did not stop. Rose continued driving “[v]ery, very fast,” id. at 41; her vehicle was “an inch away from fully hitting” R.Z., and the passenger-side mirror “graze[d R.Z.’s] arm,” id. at 16. At the same time, R.Z. “put [her] hand out to make sure [J.H.] stopped before he kept walking onto the bus” so he would not “walk[ ] in front of the car.” Id. at 17. This incident happened so quickly that the bus driver “couldn't even scream out one of [her] student's names. [She] couldn't say stop. The only thing [she] could do was honk [the bus's] horn.” Tr. Vol. II at 39. R.Z. believed that if she had walked just one more step, Rose would have hit her.

[6] Rose never stopped. After passing the bus, she continued driving down Ash Road. Once the bus turned off of Ash Road, the person who had been driving directly behind Rose “sped up to try to obtain her license plate” number and saw Rose's vehicle parked in a childcare facility's parking lot. Tr. Vol. II at 58.

[7] The State charged Rose with two counts of criminal recklessness as Level 6 felonies.¹ At her jury trial, Rose testified in her own defense, claiming she did not see the bus's warning lights come on because she had turned around to reprimand her son, who was sitting in the back seat of her vehicle, and when she turned back around and saw the lights, she “slammed on [her] brakes immediately and turned [her] wheel to the right,” Tr. Vol. II at 70. Rose stated “there was no oomph in [her] brakes. [She] was at the bottom of [her] brakes. It was just slowing down.” Id. Rose then “tried to be as close to the school bus as possible to get past it” without hitting the Children. Id. at 71. According to Rose, there were “two or three feet” between the passenger side of her vehicle and the Children. Id. at 72. Rose also asserted that she honked her vehicle's horn to let the Children “know [she] was coming through.” Id. at 78. On cross-examination, Rose confirmed that her brakes had worked normally for all “[p]replanned stops” that morning. Id. at 81.

[8] The jury found Rose guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Rose to a total of 36 months, with 2 months executed at the county jail and the remaining 34 months suspended to probation. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support Rose's Convictions

[9] Rose argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her convictions. 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).

[10] To convict Rose of criminal recklessness under Indiana Code section 35-42-2-2(a) and (b)(1)(A) (effective July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2025) and as charged, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rose recklessly performed an act that created a substantial risk of bodily injury to each of the Children, and she did so while armed with a deadly weapon, namely, her vehicle. Rose specifically contends that on the facts of this case, her vehicle was not a deadly weapon.

[11] A vehicle is considered a “deadly weapon” if it “is used” or “intended to be used” in a manner “readily capable of causing serious bodily injury.” Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-86(a)(2); see also DeWhitt v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1055, 1064 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Johnson v. State, 455 N.E.2d 932, 936 (Ind. 1983); Solomon v. State, 570 N.E.2d 1293, 1295 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)) (“An automobile may be considered a ‘deadly weapon’ given appropriate circumstances.”).

[12] Here, the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict show that Rose did not heed the bus's warning lights and stop arm; drove between the bus and the Children, whom she had seen beforehand; grazed R.Z.’s arm with her passenger-side mirror; and came within inches of hitting the Children with her vehicle. Had R.Z. been one step closer to the bus, Rose would have hit her instead of just grazing R.Z.’s arm. And had R.Z. not stopped J.H. from boarding the bus, it is likely Rose would have hit him, too. This is sufficient to show that Rose used her vehicle in a manner readily capable of causing serious bodily injury. Rose's arguments to the contrary are merely requests for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility. See Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1090 (quoting Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783). Based on the foregoing, the State presented sufficient evidence to support Rose's convictions for criminal recklessness as Level 6 felonies, and we affirm those convictions.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-2(a), (b)(1)(A) (effective July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2025).

Felix, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Bradford, J., concur.