J.G. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Jan 18 2018, 10:06 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Deborah Markisohn Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Appellate Division
Indianapolis, Indiana J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.G., January 18, 2018
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1709-JV-2004
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Marilyn A.
Appellee-Petitioner. Moores, Judge
The Honorable Scott B. Stowers,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49D09-1703-JD-410
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-JV-2004 | January 18, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] On July 12, 2017, following a fact-finding hearing, Appellant-Respondent J.G.
was found to be a delinquent child for committing what would be Class A
misdemeanor theft if committed by an adult. On appeal, J.G. contends that the
juvenile court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence during the
fact-finding hearing. Because any error the juvenile court committed could only
have been harmless, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On February 28, 2017, Rodney Snider was looking to purchase a PlayStation 3
gaming console for his son. Using a service called OfferUp,1 Snider agreed to
purchase a PlayStation 3 from J.G. for $40.00. When he arrived at the agreed
upon location, Snider observed that J.G. had a “PlayStation 3 box sitting right
next to him.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 17. Snider approached J.G. and gave him $40.00.
J.G. took the money but did not give Snider the PlayStation 3 in return.
Instead, J.G. walked away from Snider taking both the $40.00 and the box
purportedly containing the PlayStation 3 with him. Snider subsequently
1
OfferUp is a mobile marketplace in the United States. See https://offerup.com/about/ (last visited
January 8, 2018). It allows users to list items for sale, browse local listings of items for sale, and purchase
items by using a program which can be downloaded onto their mobile phones. See
https://offerup.com/howitworks/ (last visited January 8, 2018).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-JV-2004 | January 18, 2018 Page 2 of 5
identified J.G. as the individual who had taken his money without giving him
the PlayStation 3 in return.
[3] On March 20, 2017, Appellee-Petitioner the State of Indiana (“the State”) filed
a delinquency petition alleging that J.G. committed what would have been
Class A misdemeanor theft if committed by an adult. The juvenile court
conducted a fact-finding hearing on June 30, 2017. At the conclusion of the
fact-finding hearing, the juvenile court took the matter under advisement. On
July 12, 2017, the juvenile court found J.G. to be a delinquent child for
committing what would have been Class A misdemeanor theft if committed by
an adult. Following an August 4, 2017 disposition hearing, the juvenile court
discharged J.G. and closed the case. This appeal follows.
Discussion and Decision
[4] In challenging the juvenile court’s finding that he is a delinquent child, J.G.
contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in admitting certain
evidence during the fact-finding hearing. The juvenile court “has broad
discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence.” Houston v. State, 957
N.E.2d 654, 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Edwards v. State, 930 N.E.2d 48, 50
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied). We will reverse such a ruling only when the
juvenile court abuses its discretion. Id. (citing Edwards, 930 N.E.2d at 50). “An
abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of
the facts and circumstances before the [juvenile] court.” Id. (citing Boggs v.
State, 928 N.E.2d 855, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-JV-2004 | January 18, 2018 Page 3 of 5
[5] J.G. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in admitting State’s
Exhibit D into evidence to prove his identity because it contained inadmissible
hearsay. Exhibit D is made up of 156 pages of records connected to the
OfferUp account used by J.G. when advertising the PlayStation 3 for sale.
Hearsay is a “statement that: (1) is not made by the declarant while testifying at
the trial or hearing; and (2) is offered in evidence to prove the truth of the
matter asserted.” Ind. Evidence Rule 801(c). Hearsay is not admissible unless
it falls within one of the exceptions provided by in the evidence rules. Ind.
Evid. R. 802.
[6] However, we need not determine whether State’s Exhibit D contained
inadmissible hearsay because even if it did, the admission of this exhibit was
harmless. “The improper admission of evidence is harmless error when the
reviewing court is satisfied that the conviction is supported by substantial
independent evidence of guilt so that there is no substantial likelihood that the
challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.” Meadows v. State, 785
N.E.2d 1112, 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). In this case, the State provided
substantial independent evidence of J.G.’s guilt. Snider testified during the fact-
finding hearing that, using OfferUp, he agreed to purchase a PlayStation 3 from
J.G. for $40.00. When he arrived at the agreed-upon location, Snider gave J.G.
$40.00. J.G. took the money but did not give him the PlayStation in return.
Snider subsequently identified J.G. as the individual who had taken his money.
Given Snider’s testimony and identification of J.G., we conclude that even if
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-JV-2004 | January 18, 2018 Page 4 of 5
the juvenile court erroneously admitted State’s Exhibit D, such error was
harmless.
[7] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-JV-2004 | January 18, 2018 Page 5 of 5