Gary L. Mefford v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 39
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Gary Mefford ran a logging business and contracted with three Jennings County landowners (Steeb, Kessler, Cherry) to harvest timber and split gross sale proceeds 50/50.
- Mefford’s employees (primarily Tina Rowlett) hauled and sold the timber to mills; payments were often made to employees, not to Mefford or his company. Rowlett gave Mefford only part of the mills’ payments.
- Expert DNR testimony estimated gross values far exceeding the amounts Mefford said he received and paid the landowners. Mefford paid Steeb $13,000 (claimed half of what he received) and Kessler/Cherry $1,000 each.
- Mefford was charged with three counts of theft (Class D felonies) in 2009; multiple continuances occurred over several years—many requested or not objected to by Mefford—and a bench trial was held in February 2015.
- The trial court found Mefford guilty on all counts, reasoning that he exerted unauthorized control over gross proceeds (paid only net amounts) and was either untruthful or willfully ignorant of the true receipts; sentence was imposed and appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mefford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of discharge under Ind. Crim. R. 4(C) was error | Delays were caused or acquiesced to by Mefford; continuances exclude time so trial was timely | Mefford argued he was held beyond the one-year limit and should be discharged | Affirmed — Mefford sought or acquiesced to continuances and did not timely object; court congestion continuances also excluded |
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft convictions | Mefford knowingly exerted unauthorized control over gross proceeds (paid only net) and was willfully blind to true amounts | Mefford lacked actual knowledge/possession of full gross receipts and thus couldn’t intend to deprive landowners | Affirmed — reasonable inference of unauthorized control and either actual knowledge or willful ignorance satisfied knowledge element |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 253 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. 1969) (control need not be physical possession; authority to direct disposition can establish control)
- Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011) (willful blindness/ conscious avoidance doctrine described and two-part test articulated)
- United States v. Draves, 103 F.3d 1328 (7th Cir. 1997) (conscious avoidance can substitute for actual knowledge when defendant deliberately avoids learning critical facts)
- Dix v. State, 639 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (unauthorized control defined under theft statute)
- Curtis v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1143 (Ind. 2011) (court congestion continuances do not count toward Criminal Rule 4(C) period)
- Todisco v. State, 965 N.E.2d 753 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (time tolled by defendant-requested continuances or defendant acquiescence to delays)