Tony McMiller v. State of Indiana
90 N.E.3d 672
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On December 13, 2016, Tony McMiller and Karri Garcia ate and drank at Scotty’s Brewhouse; Garcia’s credit card was later declined.
- McMiller offered his SSI debit card, which was declined; he said his sister would come pay but she did not. Attempts to get other patrons to pay failed.
- Police were called; after about an hour McMiller and Garcia were arrested. McMiller remained at the restaurant, did not attempt to leave, and tried to persuade nearby patrons to pay.
- Officers testified McMiller was loudly bothering neighboring patrons and continued after being asked to stop.
- McMiller was charged with Class A misdemeanor theft, resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct; following a bench trial he was convicted of theft and disorderly conduct and sentenced.
- On appeal the court reviewed sufficiency of evidence for theft (intent to deprive) and disorderly conduct (unreasonable noise after being asked to stop).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved McMiller had the intent to deprive Scotty’s of value when he consumed the meal (theft) | State: consumption and nonpayment supports inference of intent to deprive | McMiller: he believed Garcia (or his sister) would pay; he attempted to pay and sought others’ help, did not try to leave | Reversed — insufficient evidence of intent to deprive at time of consumption |
| Whether evidence proved McMiller made unreasonable noise and continued after being asked to stop (disorderly conduct) | State: testimony that McMiller talked loudly, disrupted adjacent patrons, and persisted after requests to stop | McMiller: noise was not unreasonable given circumstances; challenges credibility | Affirmed — evidence sufficient that he created unreasonable noise and continued after being asked to stop |
Key Cases Cited
- 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 court must view probative evidence in light most favorable to verdict; may not reweigh credibility)
- Baxter v. State, 891 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (mens rea may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- McMahal v. State, 609 N.E.2d 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (insufficiency reversals where defendant merely in the "right place at the wrong time")
- Bowman v. State, 468 N.E.2d 1064 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (theft supported where defendant attempted to leave and deceived about payment)
- Martin v. State, 499 N.E.2d 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (disorderly conduct supported where defendant spoke very loudly in public and continued after being asked to stop)
- Umphrey v. State, 63 Ind. 223 (Ind. 1878) (theft requires intent to deprive)