Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1186 | January 31, 2020 Page 1 of 6

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

Valerie K. Boots

Marion County Public Defender Agency 

– Appellate Division

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Assistant Section Chief –

Criminal Appeals

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

India Covington,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

January 31, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-1186

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable David M. Hooper, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G08-1809-CM-29316

Mathias, Judge.

[1] India Covington (“Covington”) appeals her conviction, following a bench trial, 

of Class A misdemeanor theft. Covington argues that the evidence is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1186 | January 31, 2020 Page 2 of 6

insufficient to support her conviction because the State failed to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that she acted with the intent to deprive Meijer of the use or 

value of the items found in her possession.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On August 20, 2018, a Meijer employee alerted Indianapolis Metropolitan 

Police Officer Nicholas Snow (“Officer Snow”) to a woman exiting the store 

with merchandise she had not paid for. Officer Snow intercepted Covington in 

the store’s parking lot. Covington was pushing a cart with unbagged 

merchandise and could not produce a receipt for the items. Officer Snow 

handcuffed Covington and was joined in the parking lot by Danielle Grimes 

(“Grimes”), a Meijer loss prevention employee. Covington was searched, and 

in her purse, Officer Snow discovered tagged DVDs and a tool used to remove 

tags. A Meijer employee returned the unpurchased items to the store. They 

included health and beauty products, DVDs, and a griddle, and totaled $169.57. 

[4] The State charged Covington with Class A misdemeanor theft on September 1, 

2018. She was tried to the bench on April 29, 2019, at which time Officer Snow, 

Grimes, and Covington testified. Grimes explained that on August 20, a Meijer 

employee stationed at the store’s doors called her to report that Covington had 

exited the store without paying for merchandise, and Grimes “ran outside” to 

address the situation. Tr. p. 10. Grimes later reviewed security video footage 

and observed Covington, pushing a shopping cart, walk in front of the self-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1186 | January 31, 2020 Page 3 of 6

checkout area and past the greeter stand. Covington “look[ed] to the right to see 

if [the] greeter has continued to follow” and then exited the store “past all 

points of sale.” Tr. pp. 17–18. 

[5] Covington’s explanation was that she left the store without paying for some 

merchandise because she lost track of her fifteen-year-old sister. Covington 

“panicked” and left the store to look for her sister in the parking lot, not 

intending to neglect to pay for the items in her cart. Tr. p. 23. Covington did not 

tell this to Officer Snow when she was apprehended. 

[6] The trial court found Covington guilty as charged and sentenced her to 365 

days of incarceration, with credit for two days and the remainder suspended. 

Covington was ordered to complete forty hours of community service. This 

appeal followed. 

Discussion and Decision

[7] Covington argues that there is insufficient evidence to support her conviction 

for theft because the State failed to prove that she acted with the requisite 

criminal intent. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is 

well settled. The decision comes before us with a presumption of legitimacy, 

and we will not substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder. Binkley v. 

State, 654 N.E.2d 736, 737 (Ind. 1995). We consider only the probative 

evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict, and do not reweigh 

the evidence or judge witness credibility. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1186 | January 31, 2020 Page 4 of 6

(Ind. 2007). We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could 

find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[8] A person commits Class A misdemeanor theft when that person “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.” Ind. Code § 

35-43-4-2(a). “A person engages in conduct ‘intentionally’ if, when [she] 

engages in the conduct, it is [her] conscious objective to do so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-

2(a). “A person engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when [she] engages in the 

conduct, [she] is aware of a high probability [she] is doing so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-

2(b). The mens rea of a crime “may be proven by circumstantial evidence alone,

and may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.” Baxter v. 

State, 891 N.E.2d 110, 121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). 

[9] Covington argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence of her 

knowledge or intent because there was no evidence that she concealed the 

merchandise or attempted to flee with the merchandise off of Meijer’s property. 

She further contends that the security video footage displayed “no evidence of 

suspicious behavior” and that the State presented “no evidence to disprove [her] 

explanation of the events.” Appellant’s Br. at 9. We disagree. 

[10] The State presented evidence that Covington exited Meijer with items that she 

had not purchased in a shopping cart and in her purse. Indiana Code section 

35-43-4-4(c) provides that evidence of a person (1) concealing property offered 

for sale and (2) removing the property from “any place within the business 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1186 | January 31, 2020 Page 5 of 6

premises at which it was displayed or offered to a point beyond that at which 

payment should be made” constitutes prima facie evidence of “intent to deprive 

the owner of the property of a part of its value and that the person exerted 

unauthorized control over the property.” (Emphasis added). That Covington 

used her purse to conceal and remove merchandise from the store, past the 

point at which payment should have been made, thus constitutes prima facie 

evidence of her intent to deprive Meijer of the value of the property. See I.C. § 

35-43-4-4(c); Hartman v. State, 164 Ind. App. 356, 357, 328 N.E.2d 445, 447 

(Ind. Ct. App. 1975) (holding there was sufficient evidence to give rise to an 

inference the defendant exerted unauthorized control when store employees 

caught defendant with merchandise concealed under his jacket a few feet from 

the store doors). 

[11] Furthermore, the State presented evidence that Covington behaved in a way 

that suggested she acted with the knowledge or intent to deprive the store of the 

merchandise’s value or use. Officer Snow testified that when he asked 

Covington whether she had paid for the items in the cart, Covington replied 

that she had paid. Tr. p. 25. Yet, Covington could not produce a receipt for any 

of the items in her possession. A review of the security video footage did not 

support her claim that the merchandise was paid for. Covington told Grimes 

that her boyfriend had purchased the items and that he had the receipts. Tr. p. 

26. Again, no receipts were produced by any individual. Covington did not 

attempt to explain to Officer Snow or to Grimes that she exited the store 

without paying for the items because she was looking for her lost sister. Her 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1186 | January 31, 2020 Page 6 of 6

argument that her actions were due to an “honest mistake” is simply a request 

to reweigh the evidence and to substitute our judgment of the witnesses’ 

credibility for that of the trial court, which we will not do. Tr. p. 23. 

Accordingly, we find that sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s 

determination that Covington knowingly or intentionally exerted control over 

Meijer’s merchandise with the intent to deprive Meijer of its value or use. 

Conclusion

[12] The State presented sufficient evidence that Covington deprived Meijer of the 

value or use of the items in the shopping cart and her purse, and that she did so 

knowingly or intentionally. Thus, sufficient evidence supports Covington’s 

conviction for Class A misdemeanor theft. 

[13] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Bailey, J., concur.