Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-JV-1528| August 26, 2016 Page 1 of 12

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

Karen Celestino-Horseman

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

D.T.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Petitioner.

August 26, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1509-JV-1528

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Marilyn A. 

Moores, Judge

The Honorable Scott Stowers, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49D09-1505-JD-850

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-JV-1528| August 26, 2016 Page 2 of 12

Statement of the Case

[1] D.T. appeals his adjudication as a delinquent for robbery, as a Level 5 felony if 

committed by an adult, following a bench trial. On appeal, D.T. raises four 

issues, which we consolidate and restate as the following two issues:

1. Whether his confession was inadmissible because he did not 

knowingly or voluntarily waive his Miranda rights.

2. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his 

adjudication as a delinquent for robbery.

[2] We reverse and remand with instructions.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On May 12, 2015, Morgan Edwards was working as a technician at a CVS 

pharmacy in Indianapolis. At approximately 11:56 a.m., an African-American 

male wearing a black hoodie with the hood up walked up to the pharmacy 

counter and began knocking his knuckles against the counter to get Edwards’

attention. Edwards walked to the counter and said, “Can I help you?” Tr. at 

15. The male, later identified as D.T., did not speak but slid a folded-up note 

over to her. Edwards picked up the note without reading it and gave it to the 

pharmacist, Charles Elroy. Edwards then stood by the safe, out of the 

pharmacist’s way.

[4] In addition to being the pharmacist, Elroy was also the pharmacy manager. As 

such, he was the only individual at the pharmacy that day who had access to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-JV-1528| August 26, 2016 Page 3 of 12

the codes to the safe. When Elroy saw an African-American male in a hoodie 

approach the pharmacy drop-off counter, he immediately thought the 

individual was there to rob the pharmacy. As D.T. approached the counter, 

Elroy was on the telephone but reached into his pocket to make sure he had the 

paper with the codes to the safe. After Edwards brought Elroy the note, he did 

not read it but opened the safe, grabbed eight or nine bottles of prescription 

medicine, dropped them into a plastic bag, and handed the bag to D.T. D.T. 

ran out of the store, not knowing that the bottles contained a tracking device. A 

pharmacy technician called 9-1-1.

[5] Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) Officers responded to 

the 9-1-1 call, interviewed Edwards and Elroy, reviewed the CVS surveillance 

video, and obtained the paper D.T. had handed to Edwards. The paper stated 

“This is a robbery . . . ” and demanded medication. State’s Ex. 5. By following 

the tracking device in the bottles, IMPD officers then apprehended D.T. 

approximately nine blocks away from the CVS. 

[6] After D.T. was arrested, Sergeant Brent Hendricks of the IMPD interviewed 

D.T. at the police station, and that interview was video-taped. Before the 

interview, Sergeant Hendricks allowed D.T. to consult privately with his 

mother. After D.T. and his mother consulted, Sergeant Hendricks provided 

D.T. with a “juvenile waiver form” that stated D.T.’s Miranda rights. Tr. at 55; 

State’s Ex. 8. Sergeant Hendricks also read the juvenile waiver form out loud 

to D.T., and he then indicated the lines where D.T. should sign. While D.T. 

looked at the waiver form and while the video camera continued to record both 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-JV-1528| August 26, 2016 Page 4 of 12

visual and audible audio, Sergeant Hendricks stepped out of the room for eight 

seconds. State’s Ex. 10 at 3:55:17-25.1 D.T. signed the waiver form. D.T. was 

not offered an opportunity to consult with his mother after he was told his 

rights and before he waived those rights. D.T. subsequently confessed to the 

robbery.

[7] On May 12, the State charged D.T. with count I, robbery by force or threat of 

force, pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-42-5-1(1). On July 10, the State 

charged D.T. with count II, violation of release of conditions, pursuant to 

Indiana Code Section 31-37-6-6(d). On July 22, the State charged D.T. with 

count III, robbery by putting any person in fear, pursuant to Indiana Code 

Section 35-42-5-1(2). The latter charge specifically stated:

On or about the 12th of May, 2015, [D.T.] did knowingly or 

intentionally take property, to wit: various prescription 

narcotics, from the person or presence of Morgan Edwards, by 

putting Morgan Edwards in fear.

Appellant’s App. at 69-A.

[8] On July 30, following a hearing, the trial court adjudicated D.T. a delinquent 

child under count III. However, the trial court dismissed count II, and it took 

under advisement a motion to dismiss count I. On September 2, 2015, the trial 

court dismissed count I. This appeal of the count III conviction ensued.

 

1

 The State’s contention that Sergeant Hendricks left D.T., “his mother and his grandmother in the room 

with the waiver form for approximately 15 seconds by themselves,” Appellee’s Br. at 11, is inaccurate. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-JV-1528| August 26, 2016 Page 5 of 12

Discussion and Decision

Issue One: Waiver of Miranda Rights

[9] D.M. first contends that his waiver of his Miranda rights is not valid and, 

therefore, his subsequent confession must be excluded from evidence. A trial 

court is afforded broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and 

we will reverse such a ruling only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. 

S.G. v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668, 674 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. An abuse 

of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the 

facts and circumstances before the court. Id. In making this determination, this 

court does not reweigh evidence and considers conflicting evidence in a light 

most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Id. However, “to the extent a ruling is 

based on an error of law or is not supported by the evidence it is reversible, and 

the trial court has no discretion to reach the wrong result.” Pruitt v. State, 834 

N.E.2d 90, 104 (Ind. 2005).

[10] Our supreme court has clearly identified how we are to determine the 

voluntariness of a Miranda waiver.

In determining the voluntariness of a Miranda waiver, we 

examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the 

interrogation to determine whether the suspect’s choice was the 

product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, 

coercion, or deception and whether the waiver was made with a 

full awareness of both the nature of the right[s] being abandoned 

and the consequences of the decision to abandon [them]. 

* * *
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-JV-1528| August 26, 2016 Page 6 of 12

Relevant considerations include the juvenile’s physical, mental, 

and emotional maturity; whether the juvenile or his or her parent 

understood the consequences of the juvenile’s statements; 

whether the juvenile and his or her parent were informed of the 

delinquent act for which the juvenile was suspected; the length of 

time the juvenile was held in custody before consulting with his 

or her parent; whether there was any force, coercion, or 

inducement; and whether the juvenile and his or her parent had 

been advised of the juvenile’s Miranda rights.

D.M. v. State, 949 N.E.2d 327, 339-340 (Ind. 2011) (internal quotations and 

citations omitted).

[11] The special status accorded juveniles in other areas of the law is fully applicable 

in the area of criminal procedure. S.D. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 425, 429 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2010) (citing Hall v. State, 346 N.E.2d 584, 586 (Ind. 1976)), trans. denied. 

“To give effect to that status in the context of waiving intricate, important, and 

long established Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, we require that a juvenile

be afforded a meaningful opportunity to consult with a parent or guardian 

before the solicitation of any statement.” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, Indiana 

Code Section 31-32-5-1 (2015) provides that a juvenile’s state or federal 

constitutional rights may be waived only:

(2) by the child’s custodial parent, guardian, custodian, or 

guardian ad litem if:

(A) that person knowingly and voluntarily waives the 

right;

* * *
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-JV-1528| August 26, 2016 Page 7 of 12

(C) meaningful consultation has occurred between 

that person and the child; and

(D) the child knowingly and voluntarily joins with 

the waiver[.]

Our supreme court has held that a parent-child consultation under this statute 

“can only be meaningful where both the juvenile and the parent are advised of 

the juvenile’s rights prior to the consultation.” D.M., 949 N.E.2d at 341-42 

(emphasis added); see also Douglas v. State, 481 N.E.2d 107, 111 (Ind. 1985) 

(“[P]ursuant to Lewis [v. State, 288 N.E.2d 138 (Ind. 1972)], the consultation 

must occur after the advisement of rights but prior to the decision to execute a 

waiver and make a statement.”). 

[12] Here, the officer interviewing D.T. allowed him to consult privately with his 

mother only before the officer advised D.T. of his Miranda rights. D.T.’s 

consultation with his mother regarding his rights cannot have been meaningful 

because neither he nor his mother was told what D.T.’s rights were before their 

consultation. 2 Id. Therefore, D.T.’s subsequent waiver of his rights and 

confession to the crime cannot be used against him. Lewis, 288 N.E.2d at 142. 

 

2

 After handing the waiver form to D.T., Sergeant Hendricks stepped out of the interrogation room for only 

eight seconds, which, contrary to the State’s argument, did not provide an opportunity for a “meaningful 

consultation” between D.T. and his guardian. First, eight seconds can hardly be considered adequate time 

for a meaningful consultation. Second, those eight seconds were recorded by an audio/visual video camera

and therefore were not private as required for a juvenile’s “meaningful consultation” with his parent. S.D. v. 

State, 937 N.E.2d 425, 431 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied; see also J.L. v. State, 5 N.E.3d 431, 439 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2014) (juvenile was not provided a meaningful opportunity to consult with his parent when the 

audio/visual video camera in the interview room was never turned off).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-JV-1528| August 26, 2016 Page 8 of 12

Issue Two: Sufficiency of the Evidence

[13] D.T. contends that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his 

conviction for robbery. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we 

neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. See, e.g., 

Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 (Ind. 2010). We consider only the 

probative evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom that support the 

conviction, Gorman v. State, 968 N.E.2d 845, 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. 

denied, and we “consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court’s 

ruling,” Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 36, 352 (Ind. 2005). We affirm if the 

probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence “could 

have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 925 N.E.2d at 375.

[14] The State charged D.T. with robbery as a Level 5 felony pursuant to Indiana 

Code Section 35-42-5-1(2). That statute provides that a person commits 

robbery if he “knowingly or intentionally takes property from another person or 

from the presence of another person by putting any person in fear.” Id. The 

State charged D.T. with committing robbery by intentionally taking “various 

prescription narcotics from the person or presence of Morgan Edwards by 

putting Morgan Edwards in fear.” Appellant’s App. at 69. Thus, to prove the 

crime charged, the State first had to prove that D.T. took the property “from the

presence of” Morgan Edwards. The evidence shows that the narcotics were 

taken from Elroy, in Edwards’ presence. That is sufficient to show the property 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-JV-1528| August 26, 2016 Page 9 of 12

was taken “from the presence of” Edwards.3 See, e.g., Gordon v. State, 499 

N.E.2d 228, 229 (Ind. 1986).

[15] The State was next required to prove that, by putting Edwards in fear, D.T. 

caused Elroy to hand over the narcotics to D.T. “[A] robbery by fear is not 

accomplished when a bystander is afraid if that bystander’s fear did not 

contribute to the victim’s surrender of the property.” Rowe v. State, 496 N.E.2d 

585, 590 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). There must be a causal relationship or nexus 

between the act of putting a person in fear and the victim’s decision to surrender 

the property. Id. Here, Edwards testified that she was afraid, but there was no 

evidence that Elroy gave the narcotics to D.T. because Edwards was in fear. 

Elroy did not testify that Edwards was in fear, nor did he testify that he 

observed any signs of fear in Edwards. Instead, when Elroy was asked at trial, 

“And what thoughts were going through your head” after Edwards handed him 

the note, he stated only, “I guess mainly just the process, you know, making 

sure I do the right thing with those medications and tracker, get them in the bag 

and get the individual out the door.” Tr. at 34. There was no evidence that 

Edwards communicated her fear to Elroy or that Elroy saw anything that made 

him believe Edwards was in fear. Edwards testified that she “just kind of stood 

out of the way.” Tr. at 18. There was no evidence from which a fact finder 

could infer that Elroy had any concern for Edwards’ state of mind, much less 

 

3

 Of course, we do not consider D.T.’s confession that was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-JV-1528| August 26, 2016 Page 10 of 12

that Edwards’ fear contributed to Elroy’s surrender of the property. Rowe, 496 

N.E.2d at 590 n.2. 

[16] And there was also no evidence that Elroy was in fear.4 Elroy did not testify 

that he was afraid, and there was no evidence from which the trier of fact could 

infer that Elroy was in fear. For example, there was no evidence that D.T. 

threatened Elroy or anyone else, nor was there any evidence that D.T. had a 

weapon. Cf. Rickert v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1139, 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting 

fear could be inferred from the fact that the defendant pointed a gun at the 

victim). Rather, the evidence showed that D.T. handed the note to Edwards5

and then simply stood at the counter, waiting.

[17] In sum, neither Edwards nor Elroy gave testimony that would establish the fear 

element of robbery as charged. There was no evidence that Elroy was in fear, 

and there was no evidence that Elroy knew or believed Edwards was in fear.

Therefore, the State did not provide sufficient evidence to support D.T.’s 

conviction for count III, robbery by putting a person in fear, and we must

reverse that conviction.

 

4

 D.T. maintains that it is not relevant whether Elroy was in fear because the charging information 

specifically stated that D.T. took the property by putting Edwards in fear. Thus, D.T. states it would not 

suffice for the State to show that D.T. committed robbery by placing Elroy in fear. However, we do not 

address this argument as there was no evidence that Elroy was in fear in any case. 

5

 The note D.T. handed to Edwards said, “This is a robbery . . . ” and demanded medication, but this is not 

sufficient evidence that he committed robbery because it does not show that D.T. used, or threated to use, 

force or that he put any person in fear, either one of which is a required element to establish robbery. I.C. § 

35-42-5-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-JV-1528| August 26, 2016 Page 11 of 12

[18] However, when a conviction is reversed because of insufficient evidence, we 

may remand for the trial court to enter a judgment of conviction upon a lesserincluded offense if the evidence is sufficient to support the lesser offense. Ball v. 

State, 945 N.E.2d 252, 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Theft is a lesser 

included offense of robbery. Tingle v. State, 632 N.E.2d 345, 350 (Ind. 1994). 

To prove theft as a Class A misdemeanor, the State must prove that a person

knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over property of 

another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value 

or use. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).6 Here, the witness testimony and the note 

D.T. handed to Edwards were sufficient evidence that D.T. committed theft as 

a Class A misdemeanor. 

Conclusion

[19] Since D.T.’s confession cannot be used against him due to an invalid waiver of

his rights, and since the State failed to provide other evidence sufficient to 

support D.T.’s conviction for robbery, we must reverse his conviction for 

robbery, as a Level 5 felony. However, there was sufficient evidence that D.T. 

committed the lesser included offense of theft as a Class A misdemeanor. 

Therefore, we remand for the trial court to enter a conviction for theft, as a 

Class A misdemeanor.

[20] Reversed and remanded with instructions.

 

6

 There is not sufficient evidence in the record to prove D.T. committed theft as a felony because there is no 

evidence of the value of the narcotics or that D.T. had a criminal history. Id. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-JV-1528| August 26, 2016 Page 12 of 12

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.