David Hunt, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] David Hunt appeals his conviction for Level 6 felony theft, arguing the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 1, 2021, David Hunt entered Indy Pawn in Indianapolis with a large “speaker box.” Tr. Vol. II p. 7. Hunt had been a frequent customer at Indy Pawn and was known to manager Wesley Potter. After Hunt left the store, Potter became aware that “a piece of an amplifier” known as an “amplifier head” was missing. Id. at 9. Potter reviewed the surveillance footage, which showed Hunt entering the store with a box, placing “the head of the amplifier” in the box, and leaving the shop without paying. Id. at 10.

[3] The State charged Hunt with Level 6 felony theft. A bench trial was held in November 2025. Potter testified about the value of the missing item. The following exchange occurred:

[State]: Did you see [Hunt] put the amplifier into the box?

[Potter]: Yes.

***

[State]: And what is the value of that amplifier?

[Potter]: Somewhere around $800 to $1,200, [it's] a used item. It's kind of hard to determine the exact value.

[State]: Did you have, was it part of another piece?

[Potter]: Yes.

[State]: Okay. That entire piece, what was it?

[Potter]: I still have the other half of it.

[State]: Okay. What was it listed for?

[Potter]: I think $1,500 I believe.

Id. at 19-20.

[4] The trial court found Hunt guilty of Level 6 felony theft and sentenced him to 360 days, with six days executed and the remainder suspended to probation. Hunt now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Hunt argues the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for Level 6 felony theft. Our standard for reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence is well settled:

For sufficiency of the evidence challenges, we consider only probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact. On sufficiency challenges, we will neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021) (citations omitted).

[6] “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, a Class A misdemeanor.” Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a) (2019). The offense is a Level 6 felony if the value of the property is at least $750 but less than $50,000. Id. at (a)(1)(A). Hunt challenges only whether the State sufficiently proved the property had a value of at least $750.

[7] Hunt argues “the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the piece of an amplifier that Hunt was alleged to have taken from the pawn shop was at least $750.” Appellant's Br. p. 8 (emphasis in original). Rather, he contends the State only offered evidence regarding the value of the amplifier as a whole. The State responds that Potter's testimony establishes that the piece of the amplifier Hunt stole was valued between $800 and $1,200. We agree.

[8] Admittedly, there is some confusion in the record regarding Potter's testimony. Potter repeatedly testifies that Hunt took an “amplifier,” see Tr. Vol. II p. 24, although at other points he clarifies Hunt took “a piece of an amplifier” known as the “amplifier head[,]” id. at 9. Hunt therefore argues when Potter testified the “amplifier” was valued at between $800 and $1,200, that Potter was referring to the amplifier as a whole rather than the part Hunt stole. But the record supports a different reading. Potter is asked if he saw Hunt put “the amplifier” in the box, and Potter responds affirmatively. Id. at 19. He is then asked about the value of “that amplifier”—referring to the amplifier Hunt placed in the box—and Potter replies $800 to $1,200. Id. at 20 (emphasis added). He goes on to acknowledge the amplifier Hunt put in the box “was part of another piece” and estimated the entire piece to be worth $1,500. Id. Thus, the trial court could reasonably infer from this testimony that the item Hunt took was valued over $750.

[9] Considering only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trial court, we cannot say there was insufficient evidence to convict Hunt of Level 6 felony theft.

[10] Affirmed.

Scheele, Judge.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.