Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 09A02-1702-CR-454 | January 24, 2018 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION

ON REHEARING

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

Kristina L. Lynn

Lynn and Stein, P.C.

Wabash, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Katherine Cooper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kenny Purvis,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

January 24, 2018

Court of Appeals Cause No.

09A02-1702-CR-454

Appeal from the Cass Superior 

Court

The Honorable Richard A. 

Maughmer, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

09D02-1506-F5-53

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 09A02-1702-CR-454 | January 24, 2018 Page 2 of 3

[1] Kenny Purvis has filed a petition for rehearing, which we grant in part for the 

limited purpose of addressing the first issue he raises.

[2] Purvis argues that we relied on mistaken statements of fact when we affirmed 

his conviction. His material claims are summarized as follows:

• The video footage from May 9, 15, and 19, 2015, does not show Purvis 

himself taking video games from the shelves, concealing them in the cart, 

or pushing the cart.

• On May 9, 2015, Purvis is not present when the cart is taken to the sports 

aisle and on May 15, 2015, Purvis is not the last person seen with the 

concealed video games walking toward the hardware section.

• Purvis is not with other members of the group when the group is in the 

cell phone aisle on May 9, 2015, nor when they return to Walmart for 

the second time on May 15, 2015.

[3] Even if Purvis accurately describes the video footage, the end result is the same. 

Amy Powers testified that Purvis’s truck was red with black racing stripes. Tr. 

Vol. II p. 102. Brady Herrington testified that on May 9, 2015, Purvis and the 

individuals who selected and concealed the cell phone and video games left 

together in a red truck with black racing stripes. Id. at 52. Powers testified that 

on May 15, 2015, the individuals (not including Purvis) who reentered the store 

departed in a red truck with black racing stripes. Id. at 78. After being detained 

on May 19, 2015, Purvis admitted to driving Adam Wakefield to Walmart; he 

also conceded that he knew Wakefield was planning to steal that day. When 

Purvis consented to a search of his vehicle, he led officers to a red truck with 

black racing stripes, where they found eight stolen copies of a brand new video 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 09A02-1702-CR-454 | January 24, 2018 Page 3 of 3

game, released that same day. A reasonable factfinder could infer from these 

facts that Purvis committed the crimes with which he was charged. 

[4] Moreover, the record also supports a conclusion that Purvis acted as an 

accomplice by knowingly or intentionally aiding, inducing, or causing another 

person to commit the thefts. See Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4. Specifically, in addition 

to the above stated facts, Purvis was with various members of this group in the 

video game aisle on each day in question. Though he may not have physically 

touched the games, a reasonable factfinder could easily conclude that he was 

aware of the inordinate number of thefts occurring around him. Further, 

regardless of who was pushing the cart, the group routinely split up after 

visiting the video game aisle at the same time, even though many of them 

shared transportation in Purvis’s truck. In short, even if Purvis did not commit 

the thefts himself, he acted as an accomplice by knowingly or intentionally 

aiding several of these group members in committing the thefts and, because 

principals and accomplices are equally guilty, our decision will not change.

[5] Our original decision stands, and in all other respects, we deny Purvis’s petition 

for rehearing.

Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.