Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

JEFFRY G. PRICE GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Peru, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

CYNTHIA L. PLOUGHE

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

RYAN D. SMITH, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 85A05-1403-CR-103

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE WABASH CIRCUIT COURT 

The Honorable Robert R. McCallen III, Judge 

Cause No. 85C01-1302-FB-90

September 15, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge 
2

Following a jury trial, Ryan D. Smith was convicted of residential entry1as a Class 

D felony,resisting law enforcement2as a Class A misdemeanor, and criminal mischief3as 

a Class A misdemeanor. Smith’s sole issue on appeal is whether the State presented 

sufficient evidence that he entered his victim’s residence in order to sustain his residential 

entry conviction. 

We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

During the late hours of February 7 and early hours of February 8, 2013, Shane 

Sadler and his fiancée, Amanda McCracken, were at home in Lagro, Indiana. They heard 

loud music outside, and upon investigating, Sadler saw that Smith, his cousin, was on the 

front porch. Smith and Sadler had had a falling out over the fact that Smith purportedly 

had an affair with McCracken while Sadler was in prison. Smith told Sadler to let him in 

so that they could settle their differences. Sadler did not open the door and told Smith to 

come back later when Smith was not intoxicated. 

Smith did not go away, but instead, retrieved a shovel from the neighbor’s house,

which he used to shatter the glass of Sadler’s front door. Sadler was inside holding the 

door closed. Smith reached through the broken window with his hand and attempted to 

unlock the door’s deadbolt. Smith eventually made his way into the home. McCracken, 

 

1

 See Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.5. We note that, effective July 1, 2014, new versions of the residential 

entry statute and the statutes underlying Smith’s other convictions were enacted. Although the substance 

of the statutes remained the same, we note that we are applying the version of the residential entry statute 

in effect at the time of Smith’s offense. 

2

 See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1. 

3

 See Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2. 
3

who was hiding behind the bedroom door, saw Smith walk through the door of the 

bedroom, turn around, and leave. Smith then had a confrontation with a concerned 

neighbor who disarmed Smith of the shovel and knocked Smith unconscious with it. When 

he regained consciousness and heard police sirens approaching, Smith fled. Smith did not 

heed the orders of police officers to stop. The police cornered and apprehended Smith.

The State charged Smith with residential entry as a Class D felony, resisting law 

enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor, criminal mischief as a Class A misdemeanor, and 

battery as a Class B misdemeanor.4 Following a jury trial, Smith was convicted on all 

counts but the battery count. The trial court sentenced Smith to an aggregate sentence of 

four years. Additional facts will be added as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Smith contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of entry to support 

his residential entry conviction. Our standard of reviewing claims of sufficiency of the 

evidence is well settled. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only 

the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 

867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not reweigh the evidence or assess witness 

credibility. Id. We consider conflicting evidence most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. 

Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements 

of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It is not necessary that the evidence 

overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. The evidence is sufficient if an 

 

4 The State dismissed additional counts of burglary and battery before and during trial, 

respectively. 
4

inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. 

In order to make its case against Smith, the State was required to show that he 

knowingly or intentionally broke into and entered the dwelling of another. Ind. Code § 35-

43-2-1.5. Even partial entry of a defendant’s body into the dwelling is sufficient to prove 

the “entry” element. See Anez v. State, 408 N.E.2d 1315, 1316 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) 

(evidence of defendant’s hands and arms inside broken window sufficient); see also Lee v. 

State, 349 N.E.2d 214, 216, 169 Ind. App. 470, 472 (1976) (Lee’s foot and shoulder entered 

victim’s home).5 

The evidence most favorable to the jury’s verdict is that Smith shattered the glass 

of the front door, reached in with his hand in an attempt to unlock the door’s deadbolt, and 

eventually made his way into the home such that he was seen by McCracken entering the 

bedroom. On appeal, neither party references McCracken’s testimony that Smith entered 

the home. At trial, the State argued that the evidence showed that Smith made full or partial 

entry into the home. Tr. at 184-85. Therefore, even if the jury chose not to believe 

McCracken’s testimony, pursuant to Lee and Anez, evidence that Smith reached into the 

broken front door glass with his hand is sufficient to sustain his conviction. Smith’s 

argument on appeal is based upon evidence that he argues shows that only his shovel 

entered the home. That argument requires us to consider evidence that does not support 

the jury’s verdict, which we cannot do. Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146. Affirmed. 

BAKER, J., and ROBB, J., concur.

 

5 Lee and Anez are burglary cases. Burglary and residential entry share the elements of breaking 

and entering a structure, and therefore, burglary cases assist us in our analysis.