Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 1 of 5

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.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Anne Medlin Lowe

James A. Piatt

Riley Williams & Piatt, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Evan Matthew Comer

Deputy Attorney General

Michael Vo Sherman

Certified Legal Intern

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Angel Renee Campbell,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 26, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-217

Appeal from the 

Hamilton Superior Court

The Honorable

S. Matthew Cook, Judge Pro 

Tempore

Trial Court Cause No.

29D05-1802-CM-1516

Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 2 of 5

[1] Angel Renee Campbell (“Campbell”) appeals her conviction for theft and raises 

one issue, which we restate as: whether there was sufficient evidence to support 

her conviction as an accomplice to theft as a Class A misdemeanor.

1 We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 11, 2017, Jamie Byers (“Byers”), an employee of the Noblesville 

Ace Hardware (“the store”), was working at the store’s cash register. Tr. Vol. 2

at 11. Campbell entered the store, approached Byers at the cash register, and 

inquired about paint supplies. Id. at 11-12. Byers answered Campbell’s 

questions and directed Campbell to the paint aisle. Id. Campbell returned to 

the cash register and told Byers that she could not find the items she wanted. 

Id. Byers left the cash register, returned to the paint aisle, and helped Campbell

find what she wanted. Id. When Byers returned to the cash register, she saw 

that several Yeti drinking products near the front of the store were missing, so 

she notified the store manager, Corey Musolf (“Musolf”). Id. at 13. Musolf 

viewed security camera footage to confirm that items were taken before he 

contacted the Noblesville Police Department. Id. at 20. The camera footage

showed Campbell walking into the store with a man, who was later identified 

as Edward May (“May”), Campbell’s former husband. Id. at 20, 26. Campbell 

and May were holding hands. Id. at 23. Campbell and May walked to the 

 

1

See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 3 of 5

paint aisle, and Campbell then walked to the cash register to pull Byers away 

from the register while May took Yeti cups and then left the store. Id. at 20. 

[3] The State charged Campbell with theft as a Class A misdemeanor. Appellant’s 

App. Vol. II at 3, 10. At the end of the bench trial, the trial court found 

Campbell guilty as charged and sentenced her to one year in the Hamilton 

County Jail, suspended to probation. Tr. Vol. 2 at 42-43. Campbell now 

appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[4] Campbell argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that she was an 

accomplice in helping May commit theft as a Class A misdemeanor. When we 

review the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge 

the credibility of the witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 

2005). Rather, we will affirm a conviction if we find that any reasonable 

factfinder could find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when 

considering all the facts and inferences that favor the conviction. Bailey v. State, 

907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). The evidence need not exclude every 

reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but it must support a reasonable inference 

of guilt to support the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007).

[5] “A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over 

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

of its value or use, commits theft, a Class A misdemeanor.” Ind. Code § 35-43-

4-2(a). An accomplice is any person who knowingly or intentionally aids, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 4 of 5

induces, or causes another to commit an offense. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4. 

Factors to determine whether a person is an accomplice include (1) presence at 

the scene of the crime; (2) companionship with another at the scene of the 

crime; (3) failure to oppose the commission of the crime; and (4) course of 

conduct before, during, and after the crime. Castillo v. State, 974 N.E.2d 458, 

466 (Ind. 2012). The evidence need not show that the individual participated in 

every element of the crime. Hart, 30 N.E.3d 1283, 1288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). 

Rather,

[t]here must be evidence [of] affirmative conduct, either in the 

form of acts or words, from which an inference of a common 

design or purpose to effect the commission of a crime may be 

reasonably drawn. Each participant must knowingly or 

intentionally associate himself with the criminal venture, 

participate in it, and try to make it succeed. That said, the State 

need not show that [the accomplice] was a party to the 

preconceived scheme; it must merely demonstrate concerted 

action or participation in an illegal act. 

Griffin v. State, 16 N.E.3d 997, 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (internal citations 

omitted).

[6] Here, the circumstantial evidence allowed the trial court to reasonably infer that 

Campbell acted as an accomplice to May in his theft of merchandise from the 

store. First, it is undisputed that Campbell was at the scene of the crime with 

May. Tr. Vol. 2 at 12; Castillo, 974 N.E.2d at 466. Second, Campbell and May 

were companions at the scene, evinced by their entry into the store while 

holding hands. Tr. Vol. 2 at 20; Castillo, 974 N.E.2d at 466. The only time they 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 5 of 5

were not together was when Campbell asked Byers to accompany her to the 

paint aisle of the store while May went to the front of the store and took the 

items. Tr. Vol. 2 at 20, 35. Third, May and Campbell acted in concert. 

Castillo, 974 N.E.2d at 466. After they separated inside the store, Campbell 

distracted Byers by luring her into the paint aisle. Tr. Vol. 2 at 12, 20. Once 

Byers was distracted, May went to the front of the store and concealed 

merchandise in his jacket. Id. at 20. After May concealed the merchandise, he 

exited the store, and Campbell left soon after without purchasing anything. Id. 

at 13, 30. These facts make clear that Campbell had the requisite mens rea to be 

convicted as an accomplice to Class A misdemeanor theft. See I.C. 35-41-2-4 

(“A person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another 

person to commit an offense commits that offense[.]”).

[7] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.