Michael M. Harvey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 71A04-1608-CR-1992

On Feb. 25, 2015, Michael M. Harvey shopped at a South Bend Walmart and used a self-checkout lane with multiple nearby self-checkout machines.
Harvey scanned five pillows, failed to scan a sixth pillow (gave it to his fiancée), attempted but failed to scan a bedding comforter and an in-ear thermometer, and placed those items (unscanned) in his cart; other small items also were unscanned.
Harvey paid $19.15 (displayed on the self-checkout screen) and left the store; the bedding set cost $49.96 and the thermometer $19.87. Store asset-protection employees had been monitoring via camera and confronted Harvey as he exited.
Harvey claimed he mistakenly believed the bedding set and thermometer had scanned because he heard beeps from the machines; he testified other customers were using nearby machines and that he heard two beeps.
A jury convicted Harvey of Class A misdemeanor theft; the trial court imposed a $300 fine. Harvey appealed, arguing (1) improper limitation of cross-examination about ambiguous beeps, and (2) insufficiency of the evidence to prove knowledge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court improperly limited cross-examination about whether beeps from nearby self-checkout machines could confuse a customer	State argued the defense question called for speculation and was properly excluded	Harvey argued the question was relevant to mens rea and was his only chance to support his mistake-of-fact defense	Court held the question called for speculation; sustaining the objection was not an abuse of discretion and did not deny Harvey his defense
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Harvey knowingly exerted unauthorized control with intent to deprive (theft)	State argued video, testimony, and receipt evidence supported an inference of intentional nonpayment	Harvey argued he honestly believed he had scanned and paid for the items due to confusing beeps	Court held the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer Harvey knowingly took the items without paying; conviction affirmed

Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459 (Ind. 2015) (trial-court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Kubsch v. State, 784 N.E.2d 905 (Ind. 2003) (witness testimony calling for speculation is inadmissible)
Lindsey v. State, 485 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 1985) (hypothetical questions based on facts not established invite speculation)
Meehan v. State, 7 N.E.3d 255 (Ind. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)