Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1407-CR-314 | February 19, 2015 Page 1 of 7

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Michael G. Moore

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Brian Reitz

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Natasha R. Hill,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

February 19, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

49A05-1407-CR-314

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Annie Christ-Garcia, 

Judge and Honorable Tiffany Vivo, 

Commissioner

Cause No. 49F24-1204-FD-27888

Robb, Judge.

Case Summary and Issues

[1] Following a bench trial, Natasha Hill was convicted of two counts of theft and 

ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2526.83. Hill appeals, raising two 

issues for our review: (1) whether her dual theft convictions, which were based 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1407-CR-314 | February 19, 2015 Page 2 of 7

upon acts committed minutes apart and in the same department store, are 

contrary to law; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering 

Hill to pay restitution. Concluding Hill’s dual convictions violate Indiana’s 

single larceny rule and that the trial court’s restitution order was an abuse of 

discretion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 26, 2012, Macy’s loss prevention officer Jeremiah Kiel received an 

anonymous phone call informing him that Natasha Hill, a Macy’s employee, 

would be involved in a theft at the store. Consequently, Kiel began surveilling 

Hill using real-time video monitors. Late that morning, a customer, Robin 

Shannon, approached Hill’s cash register and provided Hill with receipts from 

previous purchases. Hill entered a number of items as returns, but Shannon did

not actually return any items. Hill then placed the value of the “returned” items 

on a gift card and gave it to Shannon.1 

[3] While Hill was processing Shannon’s phony returns, Shannon left the register 

and returned with several items, including pillows, a comforter, a cookware set,

and a set of kitchen containers. Hill scanned the kitchen container set twice 

and charged it to the gift card, but she did not scan any of Shannon’s other 

 

1

 The value of the gift card Hill provided to Shannon was $938.65. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1407-CR-314 | February 19, 2015 Page 3 of 7

items. Hill took the kitchen set and cookware set to a customer pick-up 

location while Shannon walked away carrying the pillows and comforter. 

[4] Macy’s loss prevention officers confronted both Shannon and Hill about the 

transactions. Hill signed a statement admitting that she aided Shannon by 

fraudulently returning items and that she did not charge Shannon for the 

cookware, comforter, or pillows. Hill also signed a promissory note agreeing to 

pay Macy’s in the amount of $2607.32, which included values attributable to 

the incident on April 26 in addition to past incidents in which Macy’s 

determined that Hill had stolen from the department store.2 

[5] On April 30, 2012, the State charged Hill with two counts of theft, both Class D 

felonies. The counts stated in relevant part:

[Count 1:] On or about April 26, 2012, . . . Hill, did knowingly exert 

unauthorized control over the property, to wit: the value of United 

States Currency, of another person, to wit: Macy’s, with the intent to 

deprive the person of any part of its value or use. . . . 

[Count 2:] On or about April 26, 2012, . . . Hill, did knowingly exert 

unauthorized control over the property, to wit: the value of United 

States Currency and/or pillows and/or comforter and/or cookware, of 

another person, to wit: Macy’s, with the intent to deprive the person 

of any part of its value or use.

 

2

 The statement signed by Hill included references to additional dollar amounts unrelated to the April 26 

incident, although it is not entirely clear how Hill and/or Macy’s arrived at those amounts: “I have done this 

for [Shannon] on several occasions over the last two months. The total of fraudulent returns in $3784.59. I 

have also passed off merchandise over the last two months for $3000.00 to [Shannon]. . . . The total amount 

is $9243.47.” State’s Exhibit 6. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1407-CR-314 | February 19, 2015 Page 4 of 7

Appellant’s Appendix at 21-22. A bench trial was held on May 15, 2014, at 

which the trial court found Hill guilty of both counts. At sentencing, the trial 

court reduced Hill’s convictions pursuant to the alternative misdemeanor 

sentencing statute and ordered concurrent one-year sentences to be suspended 

to probation. The State indicated that Hill had paid $80.39 to Macy’s, and the

trial court also ordered restitution in the amount of $2526.83, which was the 

remainder on Hill’s promissory note. This appeal followed. 

Discussion and Decision

I. Single Larceny Rule

[6] Hill contends that the trial court erred by entering convictions for both counts of 

theft. The parties focus on whether Hill’s convictions violate double jeopardy 

principles, see Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 50-54 (Ind. 1999), or the 

continuing crime doctrine, see Bartlett v. State, 711 N.E.2d 497, 500-01 (Ind. 

1999). However, we believe that a similar rule, the single larceny rule, better 

applies to the circumstances of this case. 

[7] The single larceny rule provides that “when several articles of property are 

taken at the same time, from the same place, belonging to the same person or to 

several persons there is but a single ‘larceny,’ i.e. a single offense.” Raines v. 

State, 514 N.E.2d 298, 300 (Ind. 1987). “If only one offense is committed, there 

may be but one judgment and one sentence.” Id. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1407-CR-314 | February 19, 2015 Page 5 of 7

[8] The single larceny rule is applicable to facts of this case. Hill’s theft of currency 

(Count 1) and assorted inventory (Count 2) all occurred at the same cash 

register in Macy’s. Neither Hill nor her accomplice, Shannon, left the store 

between thefts. And the thefts occurred at 11:26 a.m. and 11:34 a.m.—only 

minutes apart. See State’s Exhibits 1 and 2. Therefore, Hill’s conduct amounts 

to a single offense, and she may be convicted of only one count of theft. 

II. Restitution

[9] Second, Hill contests the trial court’s restitution order. An order of restitution 

lies within the trial court’s discretion and will be reversed only where there has 

been an abuse of discretion. Kays v. State, 963 N.E.2d 507, 509 (Ind. 2012). A 

trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and 

effect of the facts and circumstances or when the trial court has misinterpreted 

the law. Remy v. State, 17 N.E.3d 396, 399 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. 

[10] Hill maintains that the restitution order is erroneous. She argues that the order 

was based on uncharged acts, that the amount was not based on an actual loss 

by Macy’s, and that the trial court erred by failing to inquire into Hill’s ability 

to pay. We agree and hold that reversal is required due to the restitution order’s 

reliance on uncharged acts and a lack of evidence of actual loss to Macy’s.

[11] Indiana law authorizes the trial court to order restitution for damages incurred 

“as a result of the crime.” Ind. Code § 35-50-5-3(a)(1). Absent an agreement to 

pay restitution, a defendant may not be ordered to pay restitution for an act that 

did not result in a conviction. Polen v. State, 578 N.E.2d 755, 756-57 (Ind. Ct. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1407-CR-314 | February 19, 2015 Page 6 of 7

App. 1991), trans. denied; see also Green v. State, 811 N.E.2d 874, 879-80 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2004). At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor was quite clear that the

amount on which the trial court fashioned its restitution order was based on 

uncharged acts:

The amount of that promissory note included above and beyond this 

particular theft incident, to include other allegations. Um, I had 

informed them I don’t think that we could ask for that amount or for 

this particular case given that [Hill is] only being convicted of the 

events that Your Honor heard yesterday. 

Transcript at 150. Despite the State’s admission that the $2607.32 amount 

included losses from allegations of theft unrelated to Hill’s convictions, the trial 

court awarded restitution based on that amount. This was an abuse of the trial 

court’s discretion. 

[12] Indiana law also requires that restitution for property damages incurred by the 

victim be “based on the actual cost of repair (or replacement if repair is 

inappropriate) . . . .” Indiana Code § 35-50-5-3(a)(1). A restitution order must 

reflect “actual loss” incurred by the victim, and “[t]he amount of actual loss is a 

factual matter which can be determined only upon the presentation of 

evidence.” Batarseh v. State, 622 N.E.2d 192, 196 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), trans. 

denied. In this case, the record indicates that Hill and Shannon were detained 

by loss prevention officers before ever leaving the Macy’s store. It stands to 

reason that the gift card and any stolen inventory was confiscated at that time, 

and there is no evidence proving otherwise. Further, we are unaware of any 

evidence showing that any of the items Hill attempted to steal were damaged or 

needed to be replaced by Macy’s. Simply stated, the State did not present 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1407-CR-314 | February 19, 2015 Page 7 of 7

evidence of an actual loss by Macy’s supporting the trial court’s restitution 

order. 

Conclusion

[13] We conclude that Hill’s dual theft convictions violate the single larceny rule, 

and we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court vacate one of 

Hill’s two convictions and amend the sentencing order accordingly. We also 

conclude that the trial court’s restitution order was improperly based on 

uncharged acts and was not based on evidence of an actual loss suffered by 

Macy’s. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court 

vacate its restitution order.

3

[14] Reversed and remanded.

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.

 

3

 The State is not precluded from requesting a hearing to present evidence of an actual loss suffered by 

Macy’s as a result of the crime for which Hill was actually charged and convicted. See Iltzsch v. State, 981 

N.E.2d 55, 57 (Ind. 2013); see also J.H. v. State, 950 N.E.2d 731, 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).