Court Opinion

ID: 9955430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 16:05:10.207459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:41.167307
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                     Mar 28 2024, 9:36 am

                                                                         CLERK
                                                                     Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                        Court of Appeals
                                                                          and Tax Court

                                      IN THE

      Court of Appeals of Indiana
                                  Linda E. Newman,
                                   Appellant-Defendant

                                              v.

                                    State of Indiana,
                                    Appellant-Plaintiff

                                    March 28, 2024
                               Court of Appeals Case No.
                                     23A-CR-2329
                    Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court
                      The Honorable Kristen E. McVey, Judge
                                  Trial Court Cause No.
                                  79D05-2208-CM-1928

                             Opinion by Judge Tavitas
                           Judges Pyle and Foley concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2329 | March 28, 2024                  Page 1 of 9
      Tavitas, Judge.

      Case Summary
[1]   Linda Newman appeals her conviction for cruelty to an animal, a Class A

      misdemeanor. Newman contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her

      conviction. We conclude that that evidence is sufficient, and accordingly, we

      affirm. 1

      Issue
[2]   Newman raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence is sufficient

      to sustain her conviction. 2

      Facts
[3]   In 2022, Newman and her husband, Richard, were in the midst of a contentious

      separation and divorce. The couple had three daughters: Samantha, Nicole,

      and Erica. Erica, the youngest daughter, was living with Newman in

      Tippecanoe County, and Samantha and Nicole were living on their own.

      1
        On March 14, 2024, we held oral argument in this case at Andrean High School in Merrillville, Indiana.
      We extend our thanks to the faculty and staff of the school for their hospitality. We also thank the students
      who attended the oral argument for their thought-provoking questions after the argument. Finally, we thank
      counsel for both parties for the quality of their arguments and for remaining after the argument to answer the
      students’ questions.
      2
        Newman also argues that her sentence is inappropriate. At oral argument, however, Newman conceded
      that this issue was moot because she has served her probationary sentence. Once “sentence has been served,
      the issue of the validity of the sentence is rendered moot.” Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35, 40 n.2 (Ind. 2004).
      Given Newman’s concession, we do not address this argument.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2329 | March 28, 2024                                 Page 2 of 9
[4]   Newman and Erica had several pets, including a rabbit, six dogs, and four cats.

      The dogs included: (1) Ruth, a one-year-old large, gray pit bull; (2) Tessa, an

      approximately eight-year-old medium-sized, brown pit bull/lab mixed-breed;

      (3) Chloe, an approximately eleven-year-old small, long-haired mixed- breed;

      (4) Ross, a one-year-old large, mixed-breed with yellow fur; and (5) two other

      dogs that were Newman’s pets. The dogs lived inside the house and only went

      outside for short periods of time.

[5]   Erica turned eighteen years old in May 2022, and she moved out of Newman’s

      residence on Thursday, June 2, 2022. Erica moved in with her older sisters and

      took one cat with her. Erica did not have space in the vehicle for the dogs at

      that time.

[6]   The next day, Newman left Richard a voicemail as follows:

              [Y]ou better tell your little cohorts they forgot something today,
              which are two four-legged dogs, two animals, and if they do not
              get those dogs by this weekend and take them to the girls, where
              that’s where Samantha decided or Erica decided to live, I will be
              surrendering them. So they have the weekend to get Tess and
              Chloe out. . . . Those dogs, those two dogs need to be picked up
              this weekend or they will be surrendered.

      Exhibit Vol. III p. 15. Richard returned Newman’s call and left her a voicemail

      informing Newman that they would pick up the dogs the next day on Saturday,

      June 4.

[7]   On Saturday evening, Richard and Erica went to Newman’s house to retrieve

      the dogs. Newman, however, said that she gave the dogs away to friends. Law
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2329 | March 28, 2024           Page 3 of 9
       enforcement was called to Newman’s residence at that time for a domestic

       disturbance. Later that evening, a woman posted online that she found Chloe.

       Nicole messaged the woman and picked up Chloe on the following morning.

[8]    The next day, on June 5, an officer responded to a call of two dogs “running

       down the roadway.” Tr. Vol. II p. 32. The caller was able to capture one of the

       dogs, Ross. The officer found that Ross was uninjured but was “[a] little dirty”,

       “wet,” and “[p]anting a little bit . . . .” Id. at 36. The officer contacted Erica,

       who met with the officer to retrieve Ross. By June 8, Good Samaritans had

       helped to locate Ruth and Tessa.

[9]    The State charged Newman with cruelty to an animal, a Class A misdemeanor,

       for abandoning the animals. The trial court held a bench trial in July 2023 and

       found Newman guilty as charged. At the sentencing hearing, Newman testified

       that she had an emotional breakdown “a couple days before the incident with

       the animals.” Id. at 107. Newman claimed that she had no memory of what

       happened to the dogs.

[10]   The trial court found no aggravating circumstances, and the trial court found

       support from Newman’s friends and Newman’s lack of criminal history as

       mitigating circumstances. The trial court sentenced Newman to 180 days of

       unsupervised probation. Newman now appeals.

       Discussion
[11]   Newman challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain her conviction.

       Sufficiency of evidence claims “warrant a deferential standard, in which we
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2329 | March 28, 2024           Page 4 of 9
       neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Powell v. State, 151

       N.E.3d 256, 262 (Ind. 2020) (citing Perry v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1236, 1242 (Ind.

       1994)). “When there are conflicts in the evidence, the jury must resolve them.”

       Young v. State, 198 N.E.3d 1172, 1176 (Ind. 2022). We consider only the

       evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn from

       that evidence. Powell, 151 N.E.3d at 262 (citing Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566,

       570 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied). “We will affirm a conviction if there is substantial

       evidence of probative value that would lead a reasonable trier of fact to

       conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 263.

       We affirm the conviction “unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the

       elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not

       necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of

       innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn

       from it to support the verdict.” Sutton v. State, 167 N.E.3d 800, 801 (Ind. Ct.

       App. 2021) (quoting Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007)).

[12]   Newman was convicted of cruelty to an animal pursuant to Indiana Code

       Section 35-46-3-7, which provides in part:

               (a) A person who:

                        (1) has a vertebrate animal in the person’s custody; and

                        (2) recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally abandons or
                        neglects the animal;

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2329 | March 28, 2024          Page 5 of 9
                    commits cruelty to an animal, a Class A misdemeanor.
                    However, except for a conviction under section 1 of this
                    chapter, the offense is a Level 6 felony if the person has a
                    prior unrelated conviction under this chapter.

               (b) It is a defense to a prosecution for abandoning a vertebrate
               animal under this section that the person who had the animal in
               the person’s custody reasonably believed that the vertebrate
               animal was capable of surviving on its own.

[13]   The State charged Newman with “abandon[ing]” the animals, not neglecting

       the animals. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 10. “Abandon” means “to desert an

       animal or to leave the animal without making provision for adequate long term

       care of the animal.” Ind. Code § 35-46-3-0.5(1). Further, Indiana Code Section

       35-41-2-2 provides:

               (a) A person engages in conduct “intentionally” if, when he
               engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so.

               (b) A person engages in conduct “knowingly” if, when he
               engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he
               is doing so.

               (c) A person engages in conduct “recklessly” if he engages in the
               conduct in plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm
               that might result and the disregard involves a substantial
               deviation from acceptable standards of conduct.

[14]   According to Newman, the evidence is insufficient to show that she abandoned

       the dogs. Newman argues that no evidence existed to contradict her statement

       to her family that she gave the dogs to a friend. Newman also implies that

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2329 | March 28, 2024          Page 6 of 9
       others in the family had access to the house. Further, she argues that, even if

       she released the dogs, “she reasonably believed that they were capable of

       surviving on their own.” Appellant’s Br. p. 9. She argues that the dogs could

       survive by hunting wild animals and drinking water in a nearby pond. The

       State counters that the evidence and reasonable inferences demonstrate that

       Newman “had primary care of the dogs and that she released the dogs,

       allowing them to roam at large because she was upset [ ] with her family.”

       Appellee’s Br. p. 12.

[15]   The State presented evidence that, in the midst of a contentious divorce and her

       daughter moving out, Newman threatened to surrender four of the family’s

       dogs. The dogs lived inside of the house and only went outside for short

       periods. When family members arrived the next day to retrieve the dogs, four

       of the dogs were gone, and Newman suggested that she gave the dogs away to a

       friend. The animals, however, were discovered wandering throughout the area.

       Two of the dogs were spotted on a road, and one of the dogs was “[a] little

       dirty”, “wet,” and “[p]anting a little bit” when it was recovered. Tr. Vol. II p.

       36. No evidence was presented that the dogs had access to food or shelter

       during the days they were missing.

[16]   We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to show that Newman,

       at a minimum, recklessly deserted an animal or left an animal without making

       provision for adequate long term care of the animal. Given that the dogs were

       indoor household pets, the trial court did not find that Newman reasonably

       believed that the dogs were capable of surviving on their own. Newman’s

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2329 | March 28, 2024        Page 7 of 9
       arguments are merely requests that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot

       do. The evidence is sufficient to sustain Newman’s conviction for cruelty to an

       animal, a Class A misdemeanor. 3

       Conclusion
[17]   The evidence is sufficient to sustain Newman’s conviction. Accordingly, we

       affirm.

[18]   Affirmed.

       Pyle, J., and Foley, J., concur.

       ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
       Carlos I. Carrillo
       Carrillo Law LLC
       Greenwood, Indiana

       ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
       Theodore E. Rokita
       Attorney General of Indiana

       Kelly A. Loy
       Assistant Section Chief Criminal Appeals
       Deputy Attorney General

       3
        Newman argued at oral argument that the State alleged she abandoned the animals between June 4, 2022,
       and June 5, 2022, but the evidence showed that she abandoned the animals on June 3, 2022. “Where time is
       not of the essence of the offense, however, it is well established that the State is not confined to proving the
       commission on the date alleged in the affidavit or indictment, but may prove the commission at any time
       within the statutory period of limitations.” Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806, 809 (Ind. 2002) (internal quotations
       omitted). Here, time is not of the essence, and Newman’s argument fails.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2329 | March 28, 2024                                  Page 8 of 9
Jennifer Anwarzai
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2329 | March 28, 2024   Page 9 of 9