T.H. v. State of Indiana
86 N.E.3d 420
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In July 2016, juvenile T.H. threw a brick through the passenger-side window of Maria Castro’s 2006 Toyota Sienna; Castro testified the dashboard was scratched.
- The State filed a delinquency petition alleging T.H. committed an act that, if by an adult, would be Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief (pecuniary loss ≥ $750).
- At the fact-finding hearing, the State introduced an estimate (State’s Exhibit 1) purporting to show $2,475.35 in damages; Castro did not prepare the estimate and could not explain many of its details.
- Defense counsel cross-examined Castro and challenged the estimate’s credibility, pointing out multiple errors (wrong date, incorrect phone number and VIN, arithmetic and spelling mistakes).
- The juvenile court found the State proved damages over $750 and adjudicated T.H. delinquent for an act equivalent to Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief; no restitution order was entered.
- The appellate majority reversed the court’s finding that damages exceeded $750 (but affirmed the delinquency finding as Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief) and remanded to correct records; a judge dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved pecuniary loss ≥ $750 to sustain Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief | The estimate and Castro’s testimony establish damages exceeded $750 | The estimate is unreliable/fraudulent; Castro did not verify it and it contains numerous errors | Reversed: State failed to prove $750 threshold; Class A finding vacated |
| Whether juvenile adjudication must be modified if amount not proven | State: adjudication stands regardless of class; amount irrelevant to delinquency status | T.H.: monetary finding has civil consequences and must be accurate | Modified: adjudication affirmed but records must reflect Class B misdemeanor level |
| Standard of review for documentary evidence with other testimony | State: defer to factfinder; reasonable inferences support finding | T.H.: court may review documentary exhibits de novo where they are central and flawed | Majority: documents can be reviewed; here exhibit lacked credibility so evidence insufficient |
| Applicability of the narrow failsafe (video-evidence standard) to documents | State relied on precedent allowing narrow reversal only for indisputable video | T.H.: same approach should allow appellate review of exhibits that indisputably contradict findings | Majority applied de novo scrutiny to exhibit (analogizing to video failsafe); found exhibit unreliable |
Key Cases Cited
- Binkley v. State, 654 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. 1995) (standard: consider probative evidence in light most favorable to judgment)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility)
- Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693 (Ind. 2017) (narrow failsafe for video evidence that indisputably contradicts trial findings)
- Mitchell v. State, 559 N.E.2d 313 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (once threshold amount is shown, exact dollar figure is unnecessary)
- Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. 2006) (documents may be reviewed de novo when case turns solely on documentary evidence)
- Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Assn., Inc. v. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc., 577 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. 1991) (where evidence is not limited to documents, review is for clear error)
- Graham v. State, 713 N.E.2d 309 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (on sufficiency review, consider evidence most favorable to judgment and reasonable inferences)