Opinion ID: 2180953
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Evidence Sufficiency for Theft Conviction

Text: The defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the theft conviction. Specifically, he asserts that the State failed to prove his unauthorized control over the property. In addressing the issue of sufficiency of evidence, we will affirm the conviction if, considering only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict, without weighing evidence or assessing witness credibility, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Case v. State (1984), Ind., 458 N.E.2d 223; Loyd v. State (1980), 272 Ind. 404, 398 N.E.2d 1260, cert.denied, 449 U.S. 881, 101 S.Ct. 231, 66 L.Ed.2d 105. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a) provides in part: A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over the property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony. The checks belonging to the defendant's employer were found in an unmarked file on the defendant's desk within his separate office. The employer's secretary recognized the unmarked file as the defendant's personal file. No other person used the defendant's office. Furthermore, the secretary identified a forged signature on one of the checks as matching the defendant's handwriting, with which she was familiar. From this evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed and thus controlled the property of another. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the theft conviction.