Cissy Chantel Mae Russell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 90A02-1602-CR-355

On Sept. 23, 2014, Cissy Russell (from Connecticut) was found by a neighbor at the rear of Kelly and Andrew Gartin’s house in Wells County, Indiana; the Gartins had left the unlocked home that morning.
Russell’s silver pickup was stuck in mud near the house; its bed held large objects covered with blankets; Russell gave inconsistent explanations for her presence and appeared nervous.
After Russell left, the Gartins discovered multiple items missing, including a gun safe and other valuables; some stolen items were later found dumped near a trail in Canal Fulton, Ohio.
Law enforcement obtained Russell’s Verizon cell‑phone records (State’s Ex. 23) and Detective Betz prepared a map summarizing location data (State’s Ex. 24) showing calls near Canal Fulton and a Portage County gas station on Sept. 24.
Russell was charged with Level 4 felony burglary; at trial the court admitted the cell records and the summary map (over Russell’s foundation objection); a jury convicted her.

Issue	State's Argument	Russell's Argument	Held
Whether admission of Exhibit 24 (map summarizing cell‑phone locations) was proper	Map summarized voluminous, already‑admitted Verizon records; Betz used specialized training to aid jury understanding; admissible under Evid. R. 701 and 1006	Insufficient foundation for map; underlying RTT data weren’t admitted	Admission was not an abuse of discretion; map admissible as summary and witness testimony was proper under R. 701 and 1006
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Russell of burglary	Circumstantial evidence (presence at scene with covered items, conflicting statements, cell‑phone locations, recovered property in Canal Fulton) permitted inference Russell stole items	No direct proof Russell entered the house or possessed stolen property; physical impossibility to move heavy safe alone	Evidence sufficient; jury could reasonably infer Russell committed burglary based on circumstantial proof

McCowan v. State, 10 N.E.3d 522 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (admission of officer testimony summarizing cell records and mapping locations held admissible)
Satterfield v. State, 33 N.E.3d 344 (Ind. 2015) (discusses skilled witness testimony under Rule 701 helping jury understand technical records)
Pratt v. State, 744 N.E.2d 434 (Ind. 2001) (circumstantial evidence may support criminal conviction)
Rohr v. State, 866 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. 2007) (presence plus other circumstances can suffice to infer participation in crime)