Court Opinion

ID: 9897374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:10:47.198497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:10.895140
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                     Jun 13 2023, 8:59 am
      OPINION ON REHEARING
                                                                                         CLERK
                                                                                     Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                        Court of Appeals
                                                                                          and Tax Court

      ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
      Eugene A. Kress                                            Theodore E. Rokita
      Anderson, Indiana                                          Attorney General of Indiana
                                                                 J.T. Whitehead
                                                                 Nicole D. Wiggins
                                                                 Deputy Attorneys General
                                                                 Indianapolis, Indiana

                                                  IN THE
          COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

      Katrina Louise Fouts,                                      June 13, 2023
                                                                 Court of Appeals Case No.
      Appellant-Defendant,                                       22A-CR-917
                    v.                                           Appeal from the Hamilton
                                                                 Superior Court
      State of Indiana,                                          The Honorable William J. Hughes,
                                                                 Judge
      Appellee-Plaintiff.
                                                                 Trial Court Cause No.
                                                                 29D03-2009-MR-5701

                                 Opinion on Rehearing by Judge Robb
                                   Judges Riley and Tavitas concur.

      Robb, Judge.

[1]   Katrina Fouts was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, a Level 1 felony,

      and failure to report human remains, a Class A misdemeanor. She appealed

      her convictions, and we affirmed. Fouts v. State, 207 N.E.3d 1257 (Ind. Ct.
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 22A-CR-917| June 13, 2023                     Page 1 of 2
      App. 2023). Fouts has now filed a petition for rehearing. We grant the

      rehearing for the limited purpose of addressing a factual error in the opinion,

      but otherwise reaffirm our opinion.

[2]   In recounting the facts, the opinion states that police found “multiple items of

      interest” in a Nissan Rogue that was located in Fouts’ garage. Id. at 1262.

      Fouts points out that this is a misstatement: the Rogue was found in her co-

      conspirator’s garage. Petition for Rehearing at 4. We agree and hereby correct

      that misstatement.

[3]   Fouts raised several issues on appeal, including whether the evidence of “both

      the requisite intent to commit murder and of an agreement” was sufficient to

      support her conviction of conspiracy. See Appellant’s Brief at 6. 1 After careful

      reconsideration of the issues raised with this correction in mind, we reaffirm

      our original decision that there was sufficient evidence to support Fouts’

      conspiracy to commit murder conviction.

      Riley, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

      1
        The opinion states that Fouts “does not challenge the overt act prong.” Id. at 1263 n.3. Fouts argues on
      rehearing that she “argued repeatedly that there was no agreement and it is impliedly incorporated into all her
      arguments that there was no overt act attributable to her[.]” Pet. for Reh’g at 5 (emphasis added). We
      disagree. Fouts did argue there was no evidence of an “overt agreement,” see Appellant’s Brief at 24, but did
      not argue, impliedly or otherwise, there was insufficient evidence of an overt act.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 22A-CR-917| June 13, 2023                        Page 2 of 2