Becklehimer v. State
| Decision Date | 24 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CR-1646 |
| Parties | Chasity M. BECKLEHIMER, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: Suzanne D. St. John, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Tyler G. Banks, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Chasity Becklehimer (Becklehimer), appeals her conviction and sentence for neglect of a dependent, a Level 6 felony, Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4(a)(1).1
[2] We reverse.
[3] Becklehimer presents five issues on appeal, one of which we find dispositive, and which we restate as follows: Whether the State presented sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support her conviction for neglect of a dependent.
[4] In July 2020, Becklehimer resided with her husband and two children, J.K., aged thirteen, and C.D., aged four2 , in Decatur County, Indiana. On Friday, July 24, 2020, Becklehimer travelled to Pennsylvania to meet her husband who is a truck driver. Although she travelled with C.D., she left J.K. home alone. Prior to travelling, she gave J.K. a cell phone, $25, and ensured that the refrigerator was stocked with food. This was not the first time Becklehimer had left J.K. home alone. In fact, she had left him home alone on five separate overnights without any incidents. Among the rules J.K. had to follow when he was home alone was that he was not allowed to have friends over to the house, and J.K. was expected to call his grandfather (Grandfather) and step-grandmother (Grandmother) (collectively, Grandparents), who lived about five minutes away, if he needed anything, or to call 911 in case of an emergency.
[5] On Saturday, July 24, 2020, J.K. went to the neighborhood pool with his friend B.D.3 J.K. informed B.D. that he was home alone for the weekend but did not invite him for a visit since it was against the rules put in place by Becklehimer. The following day, at about 11:30 p.m., J.K. spoke with Becklehimer on the phone. After he hung up, J.K. heard a tapping on his window. When he looked, he saw that it was B.D. and that B.D. was trying to open the window. Because J.K. knew that B.D. had a type of multi-tool with a pocketknife component, J.K. was frightened that B.D. would hurt him, and he called 911.
[6] At approximately 11:34 p.m., Officer Daniel Hunter (Officer Hunter) and another officer of the Decatur Police Department, arrived at Becklehimer's house. Upon arriving, the officers met B.D., and they ordered him to go home. The officers spoke with J.K. outside the residence and never entered J.K.’s home. Officer Hunter observed that J.K. was (Transcript Conf. Vol. II, p. 103). Officer Hunter observed that J.K. was unharmed. J.K. identified Becklehimer as his mother, he stated that he had been "alone since Friday[,]" and that Becklehimer had travelled to Pennsylvania. (Appellant's App. Conf. Vol. II, p. 14). J.K., however, stated that Becklehimer had instructed Grandparents to check on him while she was away on her trip. J.K. claimed that he had not eaten a decent meal since Friday and had only been eating "snacks such as cereal in the mornings, chips, pop, [and] star crunches." (Appellant's App. Conf. Vol. II, p. 14).
[7] J.K. called Becklehimer, but she did not answer any of his seven phone calls. Because J.K. was unable to reach Becklehimer, the officers used J.K.’s phone to contact Grandmother. While on speaker, Grandmother expressed that she was unaware that J.K. was home alone. Moments later, Grandparents arrived at Becklehimer's home. Grandparents informed the officers that Becklehimer typically informs them of her travel plans when she leaves J.K. home alone. Grandparents were "shocked" that Becklehimer had left J.K. home alone without notifying them. (Appellant's App. Conf. Vol. II, p. 14). While talking to the officers, Grandparents recalled that J.K. had recently been left home alone for one night when Becklehimer travelled to Tennessee. The officers allowed J.K. to leave his home and stay with Grandparents until Becklehimer returned. The officers also contacted the Department of Child Services and reported the incident.
[8] On August 3, 2020, the State filed an Information, charging Becklehimer with Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent. On July 14, 2021, the trial court conducted a jury trial. J.K. testified that Becklehimer had left for Pennsylvania on Friday and the incident with B.D. occurred on Sunday night. J.K. stated that he did not know why B.D. was tapping on his window but admitted that B.D. was probably "horsing around." (Tr. Conf. Vol. II, p. 94). Because he knew B.D. possibly carried a multi-tool on his person, he was frightened and dialed 911. J.K. testified that it was B.D.’s actions that made him afraid and not the fact that he was home alone. When asked if he was aware as to when Becklehimer would return from her trip, J.K. was unable to answer. Grandfather testified that, in the past, Becklehimer would advise him of her travel plans, but in this instance, he could not recall having been notified. At the close of the evidence, the jury returned a guilty verdict. On July 12, 2021, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. The trial court sentenced Becklehimer to two years, all suspended to probation.
[9] Becklehimer now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
[10] Becklehimer contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction for neglect of a dependent, a Level 6 felony. Our standard of review upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is well-established: we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. McHenry v. State , 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). We examine only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom that support the conviction. Lock v. State , 971 N.E.2d 71, 74 (Ind. 2012). "[W]e affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Davis v. State , 813 N.E.2d 1176, 1178 (Ind. 2004).
[11] "A person having the care of a dependent, whether assumed voluntarily or because of a legal obligation, who knowingly or intentionally ... places the dependent in a situation that endangers the dependent's life or health ... commits neglect of a dependent, a Level 6 felony." I.C. § 35-46-1-4(a)(1) (Neglect Statute). Becklehimer does not dispute that J.K. was a dependent in her care. She contends that she did not knowingly place J.K. in a situation that endangered his life or health by leaving him home alone for the weekend.
[12] "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.’ " Villagrana v. State , 954 N.E.2d 466, 468 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b) ). The mens rea under the Neglect Statute, requires the defendant to have a " ‘subjective [ ] aware[ness] of a high probability that he placed the dependent in a dangerous situation.’ " Perryman v. State , 80 N.E.3d 234, 250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Gross v. State , 817 N.E.2d 306, 308 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) ). Our court has repeatedly held that the Neglect Statute "must be read as applying only to situations that expose a dependent to an ‘actual and appreciable’ danger to life or health." Scruggs v. State , 883 N.E.2d 189, 191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Gross , 817 N.E.2d at 308 (citing State v. Downey , 476 N.E.2d 121, 123 (Ind. 1985) )), trans. denied. In Scruggs , we reiterated:
[T]hat to be an "actual and appreciable" danger for purposes of the neglect statute when children are concerned, the child must be exposed to some risk of physical or mental harm that goes substantially beyond the normal risk of bumps, bruises, or even worse that accompany the activities of the average child. This is consistent with a "knowing" mens rea, which requires subjective awareness of a "high probability" that a dependent has been placed in a dangerous situation, not just any probability.
Scruggs , 883 N.E.2d at 191 (quoting Gross , 817 N.E.2d at 308 ). " ‘Because such a finding requires one to resort to inferential reasoning to ascertain the defendant's mental state, the appellate courts must look to all the surrounding circumstances of a case to determine if a guilty verdict is proper.’ " McMichael v. State, 471 N.E.2d 726, 731 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984), trans. denied. The purpose of the Neglect Statute "is ‘to authorize the intervention of the police power to prevent harmful consequences and injury to dependents’ without having to wait for actual loss of life or limb." Gross , 817 N.E.2d at 309 (quoting Downey , 476 N.E.2d at 123 ).
[13] Becklehimer argues that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was subjectively aware of a high probability that she placed J.K. in a dangerous situation by leaving him alone for the weekend. In support of her claim, Becklehimer cites to two cases: Scruggs and Thames v. State , 653 N.E.2d 517, 517 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).
[14] In Scruggs , Scruggs left her seven-year-old son, M.H., at home while she ran an errand. Scruggs , 883 N.E.2d at 190. When she returned approximately three hours later, M.H. was missing. Id. M.H. was later found safe at Scruggs’ boyfriend's uncle's home, but Scruggs was charged and subsequently convicted of neglect of a dependent. Id. On appeal, this court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish Scruggs had a "subjective awareness of a ‘high probability’ that M.H. was placed in a dangerous situation when she left him home alone." Id. at 191. Even though M.H. was seven years old, Scruggs testified M.H. knew "not to mess with the stove or open...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.P. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re B.P.)
...for neglect of a dependent where she had left her thirteen-year-old son home alone for the weekend. See Becklehimer v. State , ––– Ind.App. ––––, 190 N.E.3d 975 (2022). One element of proof required to show neglect of a dependent as charged in that case is that the child was endangered. Ind......