Rasnick v. State

• Decision Date: 26 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. 39A01–1211–CR–526.,39A01–1211–CR–526.
• Citation: 2 N.E.3d 17
• Parties: Eric RASNICK, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

2 N.E.3d 17

Eric RASNICK, Appellant–Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 39A01–1211–CR–526.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Nov. 20, 2013.

Ordered Published Dec. 26, 2013.

James C. Spencer, Dattilo Law Office, Madison, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Angela N. Sanchez, Larry D. Allen, Deputies Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

MATHIAS, Judge.

Eric Rasnick (“Rasnick”) was convicted in Jefferson Circuit Court of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft and sentenced to the Department of Correction for an aggregate sentence of thirty-six years. Rasnick raises four issues on this appeal,¹ which we restate as follows:

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the “show-up” identification of Rasnick and items seized during the search based on that identification;

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting GPS evidence against Rasnick;

III. Whether the evidence is sufficient to support Rasnick's conviction for burglary; and

IV. Whether Rasnick's sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

Affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

On September 25, 2011, Rasnick spent the afternoon at a Madison, Indiana winery, sampling wine with Tamara Campbell (“Campbell”), Jessica Starks (“Starks”), and Brandon Eugene Stidham (“Stidham”). At the time, Rasnick was on parole for a previous burglary conviction and was being monitored by Scott County Community Corrections via a GPS tracking bracelet on his ankle.

The four individuals left the winery in Campbell's red, four-door 1996 Chevrolet Corsica, license plate number NN3776, with Rasnick driving. Rasnick drove the group to Hanover College, where he had previously worked laying carpet. Rasnick parked the car near the college's Wiley Hall dormitory and both Rasnick and Campbell went inside the dormitory. Starks and Stidham remained in the car.

Once inside, Rasnick and Campbell went to the basement of the dormitory and entered room number 33. There, they dumped several books from a blue backpack that they found in the room, took a laptop computer and three cameras, and left the room.

At the time of the burglary, room 33 was occupied by Hanover students Sarah Lathrop (“Lathrop”) and Christiana Haynes (“Haynes”). Lathrop and Haynes had attended a local festival during the afternoon of September 25 and returned to the dorm between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m. Haynes stopped on the dormitory's first floor to talk to her resident assistant and Lathrop proceeded alone to the basement of the dormitory.

As Lathrop walked through the basement's lobby toward the room she shared with Haynes, she passed a male and female, neither of whom she recognized as Hanover students, but whom she later identified as Rasnick and Campbell. Rasnick and Campbell were walking towards Lathrop from the general direction of room 33. Rasnick was carrying a black trash bag. When Rasnick and Campbell passed Lathrop in the lobby, all three of them paused and looked at one another for a moment, and Lathrop made eye contact with both Rasnick and Campbell. Rasnick and Campbell then turned and hurried across the lobby and up the stairs leading out of the basement. Lathrop watched Rasnick and Campbell leave and noticed a black tattoo on the back of Rasnick's right calf as he climbed the stairs.

Rasnick and Campbell also passed by Haynes in a first floor hallway of the dorm as she waited outside her resident assistant's room. Haynes thought Rasnick and Campbell looked suspicious, so she watched them closely as they left the building. Haynes later identified Campbell as the person who was carrying the black trash bag. Like Lathrop, Haynes noticed the large black tattoo on the back of Rasnick's calf.

In the meantime, Lathrop had returned to her dorm room and noticed that the door was open. Once inside the room, she looked around and saw that the books that had been in her backpack had been dumped on the floor and that Haynes's laptop was missing from her desk. Haynes entered the room a moment later, as Lathrop was still looking around. Lathrop told Haynes that their “stuff was gone” and “asked where those two people went.” Tr. p. 127. Haynes told Lathrop that she had seen Rasnick and Campbell walk out through the north entrance to the dormitory. The two girls then ran upstairs and outside just in time to see Rasnick, Campbell, and two others drive away in Campbell's car. Lathrop chased after the car and came within ten feet of it. As the car sped off, Lathrop noted the last four digits on the car's license plate: 3776.

Lathrop and Haynes then contacted campus security, and campus security called the Hanover police. Lathrop and Haynes reported to the responding officers that their dorm room had been burglarized and gave the officers a description of Rasnick, Campbell, and the car in which the two fled. They also described the car's partial license plate number and the items stolen from their room.

The Hanover police broadcast the description provided by the victims. A few minutes later, Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Shane Gibson spotted a car matching that description traveling along Highway 356. He followed the car over the county line into Scott County, where the car pulled into the driveway of a residence. Rasnick, Campbell, Stark, and Stidham exited the car and raised the car's hood. Deputy Gibson approached the car from the passenger side and noticed a blue backpack on the floorboard of the front passenger side. He called for backup and ordered the four occupants to sit behind the car.

Police then radioed campus security to inform Lathrop and Haynes that a vehicle matching the description they had provided had been stopped and asked the two victims to come to the location where the car was stopped to try to make an identification. The police did not describe the occupants of the car or reveal the presence of the blue backpack in the car.

Hanover Police Sergeant Ian Pearson drove Lathrop and Haynes to the residence where the car was stopped. As Pearson's cruiser approached the scene, both victims spontaneously identified Campbell as the woman they had seen inside the dormitory. After exiting Pearson's car, both victims also quickly identified Rasnick.

Police then searched Campbell's car, apparently pursuant to her consent to do so. Inside, they found the blue backpack belonging to Lathrop. Inside the backpack, they discovered Haynes's laptop and one of Haynes's missing cameras. After searching the nearby roadside, police found another of Haynes's cameras, this one with a broken lens and serious water damage. A third camera was never recovered.

On September 26, 2011, Rasnick was charged with Class B felony burglary, Class D felony theft, and Class A misdemeanor driving while license suspended. The State also alleged that Rasnick was an habitual offender.

On September 18, 2012, Rasnick filed a motion to suppress. In the motion, Rasnick claimed that the victims' “show-up” identification of Rasnick was impermissibly suggestive and that evidence seized pursuant to the subsequent search of the vehicle should be suppressed as the result of the improper identification. On September 21, 2012, Rasnick filed a motion in limine seeking suppression of any evidence that revealed that he was on a Scott County Community Corrections GPS monitoring system at the time of the burglary. After a suppression hearing, the trial court denied both motions, but ruled that the GPS evidence could be used only to show Rasnick's locations during the relevant time period.²

A three-day jury trial commenced on September 25, 2012. The jury found Rasnick guilty of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.³ Thereafter, Rasnick admitted his habitual offender status. On October 24, 2012, the trial court sentenced Rasnick to an aggregate sentence of thirty-six years, eighteen years for burglary and eighteen years for being an habitual offender. Rasnick now appeals.

I. Admission of Evidence

Rasnick makes two arguments regarding the admission of evidence. First, Rasnick argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the “show-up” identification by the two victims and the evidence seized pursuant to the identification. Second, Rasnick asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted GPS evidence of Rasnick's movementsduring the period of time in which the crime occurred.

In reviewing these claims, we note that the admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review the court's decision only for an abuse of that discretion. Boatner v. State, 934 N.E.2d 184, 186 (Ind.Ct.App.2010). The trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id.

A. Identification Evidence

1. Undue Suggestiveness

Rasnick argues that the show-up identification procedure was unduly suggestive, and that therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the identification and the evidence seized pursuant to the identification. The Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process of law requires the suppression of evidence when the procedure used during a pretrial identification is impermissibly suggestive. Harris v. State, 716 N.E.2d 406, 410 (Ind.1999). In some circumstances, a show-up identification “may be so unnecessarily suggestive and so conducive to irreparable mistake as to constitute a violation of due process.” Hubbell v. State, 754 N.E.2d 884, 892 (Ind.2001).

We review challenges to show-up identifications by examining the totality of the circumstances surrounding the identification, including (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the offender at the time of the crime; (2) the witness's degree of attention while observing the offender; (3)...