MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

John L. Tompkins

Brown Tompkins Lory & Mastrian

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Larry D. Allen

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Terry L. Austin,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

June 26, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

30A04-1412-CR-589

Appeal from the Hancock Superior 

Court.

The Honorable Terry K. Snow, 

Judge.

Cause No. 30D01-1404-FC-508

Garrard, Senior Judge

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1412-CR-589 | June 26, 2015 Page 1 of 6
[1] After a jury trial, Terry L. Austin was convicted of one count of bribery1

as a 

Class C felony and one count of official misconduct2

as a Class D felony, and 

was sentenced to concurrent terms of three years suspended to probation for his 

bribery conviction and one year suspended to probation for the official 

misconduct conviction. Austin appeals contending that there is insufficient 

evidence of the element of quid pro quo to support his bribery conviction. We 

affirm. 

[2] Austin was employed as a lieutenant and shift supervisor for the Greenfield 

Police Department in 2013 and 2014. In September 2013, Austin’s brief 

marriage to Koleki Wright was dissolved finalizing the contentious legal battle 

between the two. Wright’s driver’s license had been suspended since January of 

2013. 

[3] In December 2013, Austin used Facebook to contact McCordsville Police 

Officer Shawn Brady, whose patrol area included Wright’s residence, about 

Wright. Austin sent him information about Wright’s license status, which he 

had obtained through the IDACS database, her address, and her driver’s license 

number. He did so even though officers are not permitted to send IDACS 

information through messaging systems such as Facebook. In that message, 

Austin also informed Brady that Wright’s driver’s license was suspended and 

1 Ind. Code § 35-44.1-1-2 (2012).

2 Ind. Code § 35-44.1-1-1 (2012).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1412-CR-589 | June 26, 2015 Page 2 of 6

 
offered Brady a $200 gift card for a steak dinner if Brady would initiate a traffic 

stop and impound Wright’s vehicle for driving with a suspended license. Brady 

did not act on Austin’s offer.

[4] On February 18, 2014, at approximately 5:30 a.m., Wright, whose contact 

information was saved on Austin’s cell phone under the moniker “Bitch,” sent 

a text message to Austin informing him that she was traveling for work and 

could not attend a hearing that the two were to attend that was scheduled for 

later that day. At approximately 6:00 a.m. that same day Austin sent a text 

message to his friend, Fortville Police Officer Matt Fox, asking Fox for the cell 

phone number of McCordsville Police Officer Nathan Garner, whose normal 

patrol route included Wright’s residence. Austin again offered a gift card for a 

$200 steak dinner to the first one to “nail her” in his message to Fox. Tr. p. 

156. After Fox replied that he loved steak, Austin texted, “Nail her ass and it’s 

yours!!!!!” Appellant’s App. p. 22. Austin then asked Fox if Garner would 

“hook [him] up” to which Fox replied “Should.” Id. Austin sent Wright’s 

IDACS information to Fox from his computer.

[5] Minutes after receiving Garner’s cell phone number, Austin sent Wright’s 

IDACS information to Garner, including her suspended license status, in a text 

message. Austin identified himself by name and as “GPD” in a subsequent text 

message and asked Garner to call him. Id. Garner, who was on active patrol, 

called Austin, who offered Garner a gift card for a $200 steak dinner if Garner 

would initiate a traffic stop on Wright for driving with a suspended license. 

Austin told Garner the make and model of Wright’s vehicle and at what time 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1412-CR-589 | June 26, 2015 Page 3 of 6
he expected Wright to leave for work. After the phone call was completed, 

Austin sent the offer to Garner by text message. Garner did not act on the

information supplied by Austin, and at some point later filed a report about the 

incident.

[6] On February 26, 2014, Austin entered the Hancock County Emergency 

Operations Center to obtain a print-out of the Computer Aided Dispatch of all 

officer activity from the previous night. While there, Austin spoke with IDACS 

coordinator Keri Brady, Officer Shawn Brady’s ex-wife. In a loud voice, Austin 

told Brady that he had offered a gift card for a $200 steak dinner to Brady’s exhusband if he would arrest Wright and “tow her shit.” Tr. p. 91. Austin said 

that he had made the same offer to other officers. Austin spoke loudly enough 

that other people in the dispatch center overheard Austin’s comments.

[7] After that conversation ended, Brady reported Austin’s conduct as a possible 

IDACS violation. Brady spoke to someone with the Indiana State Police and 

determined that Wright’s information had been run through IDACS seventeen 

times between July 20, 2013 and February of 2014. Brady also contacted 

Greenfield Police Detective Randy Ratliff, who was in charge of all internal 

investigations for that department. Ratliff then informed his chain of command 

about Austin’s actions and contacted the Indiana State Police.

[8] In March 2014, Indiana State Police Detective Amy Johnson was assigned to 

investigate Austin’s actions. Detective Johnson obtained records from Ratliff 

and the report that Garner had filed after the incident. She interviewed Austin 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1412-CR-589 | June 26, 2015 Page 4 of 6
on March 24, 2014, and after he was advised of his rights and signed a waiver, 

he admitted that he offered a $200 gift card to the first officer to arrest Wright. 

Austin maintained that he had not done anything wrong by making the offer. 

The State charged Austin with bribery and official misconduct and the jury 

found him guilty of both felony offenses. 

[9] Austin now appeals contending that there is insufficient evidence to support his 

bribery conviction. When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the 

evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of the 

witnesses. Joslyn v. State, 942 N.E.2d 809, 811 (Ind. 2011). We consider only 

the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict and will 

affirm if the evidence and reasonable inferences could have allowed a 

reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Id. 

[10] According to Indiana Code section 35-44.1-1-2(a)(3), a person who confers, 

offers, or agrees to confer on a person “any property, except property the person 

is authorized by law to accept, with intent to cause that person to control the 

performance of an act related to the employment or function of a public 

servant[]” commits bribery, a Class C felony. Here, Austin admitted that he 

offered a gift card for a $200 steak dinner to the first officer who arrested or 

cited Wright for driving while suspended and who impounded her car. He 

claims that this conduct does not fall within the statute because the police 

officers he contacted had a duty to enforce the law, and that he merely asked 

them to perform their duty.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1412-CR-589 | June 26, 2015 Page 5 of 6
[11] “An essential element to the offense of bribery is a quid pro quo.” Winn v. 

State, 722 N.E.2d 345, 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Wurster v. State, 708 

N.E.2d 587, 594 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), aff’d by 715 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. 1999), reh’g 

denied). Here, the “quid” was a $200 gift card for a steak dinner to the first 

officer willing to arrest or cite Wright for driving while suspended. In the 

ordinary course of their duties police officers were unlikely to discover that 

Wright’s driver’s license was suspended unless she was otherwise stopped for 

some traffic infraction. Austin sought to change that by offering the $200 gift 

card to the first officer who would seek out Wright and stop her for driving 

while suspended. It is this effort to control the performance of a police officer 

by having him go beyond the normal course of his duties to seek out Wright 

and make an arrest that constituted the “quo” for the offer and made the offense 

of bribery complete.

[12] Affirmed.

[13] Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1412-CR-589 | June 26, 2015 Page 6 of 6