Jonathan Grott, Sr. v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 386
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Jonathan Grott rented a Cadillac from Enterprise Rent‑A‑Car starting February 11, 2013; initial contracts covered short periods but rental was extended through repeated credit‑card authorizations, accruing $4,997.09 in charges over 53 days.
- Grott signed a new written contract on April 5, 2013 (return date April 12) and paid $719.98; billing disputes about earlier charges arose after April 12.
- Enterprise repeatedly requested return or payment; Grott made a $600 payment on April 18 and agreed by email to return the car on April 26 but did not do so.
- Enterprise warned Grott he was no longer authorized to drive the vehicle and threatened repossession; OnStar located the Cadillac at Grott’s home and Enterprise repossessed it from his driveway on May 1, 2013.
- The State charged Grott with class D felony auto theft (I.C. § 35‑43‑4‑2.5); a jury convicted him and the trial court sentenced him to two years with most time suspended and ordered restitution; Grott appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grott) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Did evidence support conviction for class D felony auto theft? | State: Grott knowingly exerted unauthorized control over the rental car past the agreed return date with intent to deprive Enterprise of its use/value. | Grott: Evidence shows a contract/payment dispute, not criminal intent; this is a civil matter. | Affirmed: Rational juror could find beyond reasonable doubt Grott knowingly and intentionally exerted unauthorized control with intent to deprive. |
| Good‑faith contract dispute as defense to intent | State: Emails and payments show Grott knew his prior charges did not entitle him to keep the car and he agreed to a return date (April 26), undermining good‑faith belief. | Grott: He honestly believed he was authorized to keep the car while disputing charges; lacked criminal intent. | Rejected: Court found the dispute was not in good faith; jury could infer Grott knew rental had expired and acted with criminal intent. |
| Possession / "exert control" element | State: Physical control and continued possession at Grott’s residence after informed revocation sufficed to show exerting unauthorized control (possession). | Grott: He stopped driving the car and left it openly in his driveway; Enterprise could have repossessed it, so he lacked unauthorized possession. | Held: Actual possession exists when defendant has direct physical control; Enterprise’s right to repossess does not negate Grott’s possession. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tongate v. State, 954 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- Mills v. State, 512 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. 1987) (rental‑car theft conviction where defendant used false ID and never paid or returned vehicle)
- Tate v. State, 835 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (definition of actual possession as direct physical control)
- Kibbey v. State, 733 N.E.2d 991 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (prosecutorial charging decisions rest in prosecutor’s discretion)
- State v. Bugely, 408 N.W.2d 394 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987) (need for evidence of a specified return deadline to sustain theft conviction of a rental car)