Case Name: Larry D. THAMES, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1995-07-24
Citations: 653 N.E.2d 517
Docket Number: No. 49A04-9410-CR-428
Parties: Larry D. THAMES, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Judges: RILEY, J., concurs.
Reporter: North Eastern Reporter 2d
Volume: 653
Pages: 517–518

Head Matter:
Larry D. THAMES, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
No. 49A04-9410-CR-428.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
July 24, 1995.
Belle T. Choate, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Pamela Carter, Atty. Gen. of Indiana and Christopher L. LaFuse, Deputy Atty. Gen.,' Indianapolis, for appellee.

Opinion:
OPINION
CHEZEM, Judge.
Case Summary
Defendant-Appellant, Larry Thames ("Thames"), appeals from his conviction for Neglect of a Dependent, a class D felony. We affirm.
Issue
Thames presents one issue for our review: whether there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction.
Facts and Procedural History
Thames was left during the day to care for AL., his girlfriend's five-year old child. He left the child alone. She wandered out of her home and was eventually taken to the police department. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary.
Discussion and Decision
Thames was convicted of Neglect of a Dependent, I.C. § 35-46-l-4(a)(l): "A person having the care of a dependent . who knowingly or intentionally: (1) places the dependent in a situation that may endanger his life or health . commits neglect of a dependent, a class D felony." ' Thames argues there is insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly or intentionally placed A.L. in a situation that would endanger her life or health. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the witnesses' credibility. Jones v. State (1992), Ind., 589 N.E.2d 241, 242.
A person knowingly commits neglect of a child when he is subjectively aware of a high probability that he placed the child in a dangerous situation. Hill v. State (1989), Ind.App., 535 N.E.2d 153. AL.'s mother testified that she left AL. in the care of Thames while she was at work. AL. testified that she was home alone with Thames and when she awoke from her nap, Thames was not in the home. Thames told the police that he was two streets over helping someone move furniture. AL. was found wandering the street at approximately 1:30 p.m. and Thames did not return home until 4:00 p.m. Thames was experienced at watching children and thus should have been subjectively aware of a high probability that he placed A.L. in a dangerous situation by leaving her at home alone.
Affirmed.
RILEY, J., concurs.
SULLIVAN, J., concurs with separate opinion.