Michael Diaz v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
71A03-1603-CR-629
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 16, 2016Background
- On August 16, 2015, homeowner Michael Schimmel left for work and later discovered his back door kicked in and household items disturbed; an 18-pack carton of Miller Lite (containing several 16‑oz cans) was missing.
- Neighbor Gary Bryer observed a man (white shirt, blue pants, blue bandanna) emerge from behind Schimmel’s house carrying a white trash bag and walk to a house on Burdette Street; security video captured the man with a white trash bag.
- Officers responded, found signs of forced entry, and canvassed the neighborhood. Police located Michael Diaz at 926 Burdette, detained him, and Bryer identified Diaz as the man he’d seen.
- A search warrant for Diaz’s residence uncovered a white trash bag with a gray drawstring containing seven cold 16‑oz Miller Lite cans; an empty 18‑pack Miller Lite carton was found in an alley behind Diaz’s house.
- No fingerprints or direct eyewitnesses observed the actual breaking and entering. Diaz was charged with Level 4 felony burglary, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to 12 years.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Diaz's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict of Level 4 burglary | Evidence linked Diaz to the burglary: Bryer ID, security footage, matching white trash bags, beer found in Diaz’s home and empty carton in alley | Evidence was circumstantial; no one saw him break/enter; no fingerprints; inconsistent clothing; presence in neighborhood and beer in home insufficient | Affirmed — reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence supported conviction |
| Identification of defendant as perpetrator | Eyewitness (Bryer) identified Diaz at the scene; security camera showed same person carrying a white bag | Identification challenged as imperfect (clothing differences) and no direct observation of entry | Affirmed — jury could credit eyewitness and video ID |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (appellate review of sufficiency defers to fact‑finder on credibility and inferences)
- Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. 2012) (standards for assessing reasonable inferences from evidence)
- Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. 2012) (conviction may rest on uncorroborated testimony of a single witness)
- Ferrell v. State, 565 N.E.2d 1070 (Ind. 1991) (same principle regarding single‑witness sufficiency)
- Klaff v. State, 884 N.E.2d 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (trial court/jury free to believe witnesses as they see fit)
- Moor v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53 (Ind. 1995) (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility)
- Maxwell v. State, 731 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency: whether reasonable minds could reach jury’s inferences)
- Bustamante v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1313 (Ind. 1990) (circumstantial evidence need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
- Hayes v. State, 876 N.E.2d 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (an inference reasonably tending to support conviction is sufficient)