Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2797| September 29, 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

Michael R. Auger

Franklin, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Ellen H. Meilaender

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Chrys Scherer,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

September 29, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2797

Appeal from the Johnson Circuit

Court

The Honorable Andrew S. 

Roesener, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

41C01-1811-F6-600

Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2797| September 29, 2020 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] In October of 2019, Chrys Scherer was convicted of Level 6 felony theft and 

subsequently sentenced to 730 days of incarceration with 365 days suspended to 

probation. Scherer contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to 

sustain her conviction. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On the evening of November 7, 2018, Scherer was employed at the Greenwood

Stein Mart, working in the men’s and accessories departments of the store. 

After 4:00 p.m., only one register was open near the entrance and exit of the 

store. At approximately 5:40 p.m., a female wearing a black jacket (the 

“woman in black”) and a female wearing a gray jacket (the “woman in gray”) 

entered Stein Mart carrying bags. The woman in black entered the men’s 

department and began removing items from racks and placing them into her 

cart. As the woman in black pushed her cart into the women’s department, she 

encountered Scherer, and the two women appear to converse before leaving the 

area. A few minutes later, the woman in black exited the store carrying multiple

full bags without stopping at the register to pay. At the same time the woman in 

black was exiting the store, Scherer walked toward the register, moving her 

hands in the air and began conversing with the cashier. Scherer walked away 

from the register and began talking on her mobile telephone. Moments later, the 

woman in black reentered the store without the bags with which she had left.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2797| September 29, 2020 Page 3 of 6

[3] At approximately 5:49 p.m., Scherer and the woman in gray were both walking 

in the accessories department when Scherer turned around and began talking to 

the woman in gray. Minutes later, the woman in gray exited the store carrying 

two full bags without stopping at the register to pay. At the same time, Scherer 

again walked toward the cash-register area moving her hands in the air. A few 

minutes later, the woman in gray reentered the store without the bags with 

which she had left. 

[4] Scherer began working the cash register at approximately 6:34 p.m. After 

another employee left from behind the register, Scherer entered the hold room 

and removed a leopard-print jacket. Scherer walked into the accessories

department carrying the jacket, only to return to the cash-register area carrying 

an empty hanger and talking on her mobile telephone. Once Scherer returned to 

the cash register, the woman in gray approached the register carrying a pile of 

clothing and a piece of wall art. The woman in gray placed the pile of clothing 

on the register counter and exited the store with the piece of wall art without 

paying. Scherer removed the security tags from the pile of clothing. Upon the 

woman in gray’s reentry into the store without the wall art, Scherer gave her the 

pile of clothing, and the woman in gray carried it into the accessories 

department where she met up with the woman in black.

[5] Later, Scherer removed several items including a white vase and placed them in 

a cardboard box on the floor of the men’s department. Around that time, the 

women in gray and black enter the men’s department, and while standing near 

the cardboard box, Scherer leaned towards the woman in gray and conversed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2797| September 29, 2020 Page 4 of 6

with her. Some time after the three women had left the men’s department, the 

woman in black returned and reached into the cardboard box several times, 

removing items and placing them into her cart. After leaving the men’s 

department, the woman in black pushed her cart into the women’s department 

dressing-room area. The white vase was ultimately found inside a bag in the 

women’s dressing room at closing time. At approximately 7:37 p.m., the 

woman in gray exited the dressing-room area carrying multiple full bags and 

ultimately exited the store with the bags without paying. Stein Mart’s assetprotection manager Diana Floyd was notified about the possible shoplifting by 

the store’s manager. Floyd reviewed the security footage, the inventory, and 

purchase history. Floyd determined that the leopard-print jacket and piece of 

wall art were no longer inside the store, and neither had been purchased. 

[6] On November 15, 2018, the State charged Scherer with Level 6 felony theft. On 

October 7, 2019, a bench trial was held, after which the trial court found 

Scherer guilty as charged. On October 28, 2019, the trial court sentenced 

Scherer to 730 days of incarceration with 365 days suspended to probation. 

Discussion and Decision

[7] Scherer contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain her 

Level 6 felony theft conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to 

support a conviction, we consider only probative evidence and reasonable 

inferences supporting the factfinder’s decision. Young v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1225, 

1226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. It is the role of the factfinder, not ours, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2797| September 29, 2020 Page 5 of 6

to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence. Id. We will affirm a 

conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the 

crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. To convict Scherer of Level 6 

felony theft, the State was required to prove that Scherer or one of her 

accomplices knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over 

property of Stein Mart, with intent to deprive Stein Mart of any part of its value 

or use, and Scherer had a prior theft conviction. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1).1

[8] We conclude that the State produced sufficient evidence to sustain Scherer’s 

Level 6 felony theft conviction. The record indicates that Scherer and the 

women in black and gray worked in concert to deprive Stein Mart of its 

merchandise. Throughout the security footage, Scherer can be seen conversing 

with the two women. On two different instances, as one of the women exited

the store carrying full shopping bags without paying, Scherer moved her hands 

in the air and walked towards the cashier in what can reasonably be inferred

was an attempt to distract the cashier. Moreover, after being handed a pile of 

clothing from the woman in gray, Scherer removed security tags from the 

clothing without it being purchased, which is contrary to store policy, and gave 

it back to the woman in gray, who eventually left the store with multiple full 

shopping bags without paying. Finally, Scherer removed a leopard-print jacket 

1 We note that contrary to what Scherer seems to argue, it is immaterial as to whether Scherer was charged as 

the principal or accomplice in this case, because a defendant may be charged as the principal yet convicted as 

an accomplice. See Whittle v. State, 542 N.E.2d 981, 991 (Ind. 1989), overruled on other grounds in Scisney v. 

State, 701 N.E.2d 847, 848 (Ind. 1998) (“[T]here is no distinction between the responsibility of a principal and 

an accomplice. Thus, one may be charged as a principal yet convicted as an accomplice.”) (cleaned up). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2797| September 29, 2020 Page 6 of 6

from the hold room, took it to a location outside the view of the security 

cameras, and returned to the cash-register area carrying only the empty hanger

and talking on her mobile telephone. Floyd later determined that that jacket 

had neither been purchased nor could it be located in the store. We agree with 

the trial court’s characterization of the crime, when it stated, “I watched the 

video and listened to the evidence carefully. It was clear to me that you had 

orchestrated an attempt here to use other folks to come in and steal from your 

employer. It wasn’t even close, [Scherer], to be honest with you.” Tr. Vol. II p. 

109. Given this evidence, Scherer has failed to establish that no reasonable 

factfinder could find the elements of theft beyond a reasonable doubt. 

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

May, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.