Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-869 | December 5, 2018 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

Jerry T. Drook

Marion, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Henry A. Flores, Jr.

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

R.W.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Petitioner

December 5, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JV-869

Appeal from the Grant Superior 

Court

The Honorable Dana J. 

Kenworthy, Judge

The Honorable Brian F. McLane, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

27D02-1711-JD-171

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-869 | December 5, 2018 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] R.W. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her juvenile 

delinquency adjudication for neglect of a dependent, a level 6 felony if 

committed by an adult. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History1

[2] The facts most favorable to the delinquency adjudication are as follows. On 

September 16, 2017, R.W.’s boyfriend Jaylen Weaver corresponded through 

Facebook with Jaydon Garcia to set up a “weed transaction.” Tr. at 81-82. 

The next day, R.W. and Weaver got into his car with their seven-month-old 

daughter, whom they put in the back seat. Weaver drove behind a doughnut 

shop in Marion to meet Garcia and Reese Ragon and sell them marijuana. Id.

at 30, 191. Garcia and Ragon approached the driver’s side of the car. Garcia 

saw Weaver with a “scale on the floor in between his legs” and “several bags of 

weed.” Id. at 109. After Garcia gave Weaver $120 for a bag of marijuana, 

Garcia noticed that the marijuana contained a lot of seeds. Garcia decided that 

he did not like the quality of the marijuana and demanded that Weaver give 

him his money back. Id. at 106, 112. An argument ensued between Garcia and 

Weaver. As the argument escalated, Garcia observed a handgun under R.W.’s 

legs. Garcia turned to Ragon and said, “[B]ro the[y] got a gun.” Id. at 103. 

 

1 We remind R.W.’s counsel that an appellant’s statement of facts “shall be stated in accordance with 

the standard of review appropriate to the judgment or order being appealed” and “shall be in narrative 

form and shall not be a witness by witness summary of the testimony.” Ind. Appellate Rule 

46(A)(6)(b)-(c).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-869 | December 5, 2018 Page 3 of 6

Garcia and Ragon took off running. Id. at 34, 91. Gunfire was exchanged 

between Ragon and Weaver. Ragon sustained a gunshot wound to his leg and 

was air-lifted to a hospital. Weaver drove to his mother’s house, where he 

dropped off R.W. and their daughter. At the scene, police recovered a pistol in 

the road that belonged to Ragon, a backpack, and raw marijuana. Id. at 11-12, 

101-05. The police also located Weaver’s car, which had been damaged by a 

bullet that hit the rear driver’s-side window. State’s Exs. 8-9. 

[3] The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that R.W. committed conduct

which, if committed by an adult, amounted to level 6 felony neglect of a 

dependent and class A misdemeanor dealing in marijuana. At the factfinding 

hearing, the State offered into evidence Facebook messages that were sent

between R.W., an unknown third party, and Weaver a few days prior to the 

drug deal. Grant County Sheriff’s Department Detective Erin Keppler testified 

that an unknown third party contacted R.W. through her Facebook page to find 

out if Weaver could “front me one till Friday.” Tr. at 177. R.W. sent a 

message to Weaver, who responded, “how much.” Id. at 178. R.W. then 

responded, “he said a gram.” Id.; State’s Exs. 10-11. At the hearing, R.W. 

denied sending the Facebook message to Weaver but nevertheless 

acknowledged that “1 grams sound like weed, it sounds like deals.” Tr. at 205.

[4] The trial court dismissed the marijuana allegation for lack of evidence but 

entered a true finding against R.W. on the neglect of a dependent allegation. 

The court sentenced R.W. to formal probation for eight months with 120 days
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-869 | December 5, 2018 Page 4 of 6

in detention and ninety-nine days suspended. R.W. now appeals. Additional 

facts will be provided as necessary.

Discussion and Decision

[5] R.W. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her delinquency 

adjudication. Our standard of review for claims of insufficient evidence with 

respect to juvenile delinquency adjudications is well settled:

We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of 

witnesses. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 

the juvenile committed the charged offense. We examine only 

the evidence most favorable to the judgment along with all 

reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. We will affirm if 

there exists substantive evidence of probative value to establish 

every material element of the offense. Further, it is the function 

of the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in testimony and to 

determine the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the 

witnesses.

T.G. v. State, 3 N.E.3d 19, 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting K.D. v. State, 754 

N.E.2d 36, 38-39 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)), trans. denied. 

[6] R.W. argues that the evidence presented at the factfinding hearing was 

insufficient to prove that she committed neglect of a dependent. The State was 

required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that R.W., having the care of a 

dependent, knowingly or intentionally placed the dependent in a situation that 

endangered the dependent’s life or health. Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4(a)(1). In the 

delinquency petition, the State alleged that R.W. knowingly or intentionally 

placed her daughter in a situation that endangered her daughter’s life or health 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-869 | December 5, 2018 Page 5 of 6

by transporting her daughter “in a car to an illegal drug deal wherein a gunfight 

occurred critically wounding one of the participants, thus exposing the 

dependent to said violence.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 8. To establish that 

R.W. knowingly endangered her daughter, the State was required to prove that 

she was “aware of a high probability” that she was doing so. Ind. Code § 35-

41-2-2(b). “Intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence, and it may be

inferred from a defendant’s conduct and the natural and usual sequence to 

which such conduct logically and reasonably points.” Long v. State, 935 N.E.2d 

194, 197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. 

[7] R.W. asserts that she was not aware that Weaver “had plans to stop and sell 

marijuana” and that she did not have “prior knowledge of [Weaver’s] gun or 

drug history.” Appellant’s Br. at 13, 15. Here, the State offered into evidence 

Facebook messages between R.W. and Weaver regarding fronting a third party 

a gram of marijuana, which establish that R.W. was aware that Weaver was 

dealing marijuana. Garcia stated that as he stood next to Weaver’s car door, he 

saw a “scale on the floor in between his legs” and “several bags of weed.” Id. at 

109. Furthermore, Garcia testified that he observed R.W. with a gun under her 

legs and that when the argument escalated between himself and Weaver, R.W. 

“moved her leg and started to fiddle with the gun and put her hand on it.” Tr. 

at 89-90. 

[8] We reject R.W.’s self-serving argument that she was merely an “innocent 

bystander.” Appellant’s Br. at 13. R.W.’s argument is merely a request to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-869 | December 5, 2018 Page 6 of 6

reweigh the evidence and judge witness credibility, which we must decline. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

[9] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Pyle, J., concur.