Title: T.H. v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 18S-JV-80
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: March 9, 2018

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 18S-JV-80 
T.H., 
Appellant (Respondent below), 
–v– 
State of Indiana, 
Appellee (Petitioner below). 
Argued: March 9, 2018 | Decided: March 9, 2018 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49D09-1607-JD-1198 
The Honorable Marilyn A. Moores, Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals,  
No. 49A02-1703-JV-518 
 
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur.  
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Mar 09 2018, 3:48 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-JV-80 | March 9, 2018 
Page 2 of 3 
Per curiam.  
T.H., a juvenile, threw a brick through the window of Maria Castro’s 
vehicle. T.H.’s mother saw what happened and reported it to police. The 
State filed a petition alleging T.H. committed a delinquent act that would 
be criminal mischief, a Class A misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. 
The State’s petition alleged T.H. caused loss to Castro’s property in an 
amount of at least $750 but less than $50,000. 
At the fact-finding hearing, Castro testified there was damage to her 
vehicle’s window and dashboard and that she took her vehicle to a Toyota 
dealership where she received a written estimate for repair. That estimate 
was admitted as State’s Exhibit 1. After the hearing, the trial court found 
T.H. committed criminal mischief that caused at least $750 in loss, which 
would be a Class A misdemeanor, and adjudicated T.H. delinquent. The 
court did not issue any order of restitution, choosing instead to release the 
juvenile court records for civil litigation. 
When T.H. appealed, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed 
the delinquency adjudication but held the State failed to present sufficient 
evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions resulted in 
at least $750 in loss. The Court of Appeals remanded and instructed the 
trial court to modify its records to show the adjudication entered for an act 
that would be criminal mischief as a Class B misdemeanor only. T.H. v. 
State, 86 N.E.3d 420 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), vacated.   
Convictions should be affirmed unless no reasonable fact-finder could 
find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Moore v. 
State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 754 (Ind. 2015). “If the inference drawn by the trier of 
facts must rest upon speculation or conjecture, it cannot be drawn beyond 
a reasonable doubt, and we are required to set it aside.” Shutt v. State, 267 
Ind. 110, 114, 367 N.E.2d 1376, 1378 (1977). The same proof-beyond-a-
reasonable-doubt standard that applies in adult criminal prosecutions 
applies in delinquency adjudications where the juvenile is charged with 
violating criminal law. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). 
Having granted transfer and held oral argument, we review the 
evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and State’s Exhibit 1. The 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-JV-80 | March 9, 2018 
Page 3 of 3 
State acknowledges that the adequacy of its proof of the amount of loss 
depends on State’s Exhibit 1. Considering the exhibit’s multiple 
unexplained anomalies, we agree with T.H. that no reasonable fact-finder 
could find the element of loss of at least $750 proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt. Accordingly, T.H.’s adjudication as a delinquent is affirmed, but 
we remand the case to the trial court to modify its records to show T.H. 
committed an act that would be criminal mischief as a Class B 
misdemeanor.   
All Justices concur.  
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 
Ruth Ann Johnson 
Deborah Markisohn 
Marion County Public Defender 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 
Attorney General of Indiana 
James B. Martin 
Deputy Attorney General  
Indianapolis, Indiana