Terry Paul Henton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
79A02-1703-CR-535
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- In May 2015, Henton entered an AT&T store and handled unlocked demo phones on an "experience table" where phones were secured by adhesive-backed alarm sensors and coiled security/charging cords.
- While a sales associate, Arneetric Rias-Thompson, was demonstrating a phone, she grabbed the security cord to prevent Henton from taking it; Henton pulled back, snapped the cords, and fled with five or six smartphones.
- Rias-Thompson testified she was shocked and scared, and that the cords are designed to resist tampering and include a copper wire that could cause injury if broken.
- The State charged Henton with Level 5 felony robbery (use or threat of force/putting a person in fear), conspiracy to commit theft, two counts of theft, and alleged habitual offender status; Henton pleaded guilty to all counts except the Level 5 robbery.
- After a bench trial on robbery, the trial court convicted Henton of Level 5 felony robbery and imposed an aggregate ten-year sentence; Henton appealed claiming insufficient evidence of use or threat of force.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Henton "used or threatened the use of force" to commit robbery | State: Pulling with enough physical exertion to snap the security cord constituted force used against the employee's control over the property | Henton: Insufficient evidence of force or threat—no direct assault or explicit threat was made | Court: Affirmed — snapping the cord while resisting employee’s hold was sufficient force to support robbery conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Maul v. State, 467 N.E.2d 1197 (Ind. 1984) (degree of force need not be specific; force greater than needed to take unresisted possession can constitute robbery)
- Ryle v. State, 549 N.E.2d 81 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (resistance by owner and a resulting struggle can show sufficient force for robbery)
- Binkley v. State, 654 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. 1995) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (appellate standard: do not reassess witness credibility; evidence sufficient if reasonable inference supports verdict)