Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Parsley v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana

January 25, 2019

Jackie Harold Parsley, II, Appellant-Defendant,
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

          Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Grant W. Hawkins, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G05-1504-F5-13873

          Attorney for Appellant Ellen M. O'Connor Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana

          Attorneys for Appellee Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana J.T. Whitehead Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


         Statement of the Case

         [¶1] Jackie Harold Parsley, II, in conjunction with members of his family, improperly claimed a $2 million dollar prize from the Hoosier Lottery through a scratch-off lottery ticket. He and others then spent the proceeds on vehicles and other goods. Parsley appeals his convictions of false passing of a lottery ticket, a Level 5 felony;[1] theft, a Level 5 felony;[2] and five counts of money laundering, all Level 6 felonies.[3] We affirm.


         [¶2] Parsley raises one issue, which we restate as: whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions.

         Facts and Procedural History

         [¶3] Parsley managed Parsley's Package Liquors (PPL), a liquor store in Plainfield, Indiana. PPL was a family business: Parsley's grandparents had owned it, and Parsley's uncle, Jimmy Parsley, Sr., handled the accounting and taxes. After Parsley's grandmother passed away in 2012, Jimmy was the executor of her estate and monitored the store.

         [¶4] We will discuss the facts in more detail below, but PPL sold Hoosier Lottery scratch-off tickets in addition to liquor. Store employees were forbidden to buy or otherwise use lottery tickets sold at the store. The Lottery had suspended PPL's license to sell tickets from May 24, 2014 to September 26, 2014, for paperwork issues, and Parsley was supposed to have returned all scratch-off tickets to the Lottery after PPL's lottery license was suspended.

         [¶5] On October 3, 2014, Ashlee Campbell, now known as Ashlee Parsley, arrived at the Hoosier Lottery's offices in Indianapolis. She was accompanied by her then-fiancé, Joseph Parsley. Joseph is Parsley's brother. Ashlee presented a winning scratch-off ticket from a game named "100 X the Cash." Tr. Ex. Vol., State's Ex. 22A. The prize was $2 million. During the prize validation process, Ashlee told a Lottery employee she had purchased the ticket at PPL on October 1, 2014, at 8:30 p.m. She selected a lump sum payment rather than annual payments through an annuity, and the Lottery gave her a check for $1, 139, 948.09. Ashlee and Joseph bought a house, a vehicle, and a trailer for themselves, and Ashlee bought a truck for Parsley.

         [¶6] Jimmy soon learned that Ashlee had claimed a $2 million lottery prize through a ticket she had purportedly bought at PPL. He was concerned that Ashlee may have obtained the ticket improperly and contacted the Hoosier Lottery.

         [¶7] The Lottery began an investigation in November 2014 and later contacted the police. On April 22, 2015, the State charged Parsley with the offenses set forth above as well as several others that the State later dismissed on the eve of trial. Parsley was tried jointly with Ashlee and Joseph, whom the State had also charged with various offenses. A jury determined that Parsley was guilty of false passing of a lottery ticket, theft, and five counts of money laundering. The trial court imposed a sentence, and this appeal followed.[4]

         Discussion and Decision

         I. Standard of Review

         [¶8] When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his or her convictions, "the appellate posture is markedly deferential to the outcome below." Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1181 (Ind. 2016). We neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 558 (Ind. 2018). We instead look to the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support the verdict. Leonard v. State, 73 N.E.3d 155, 160 (Ind. 2017). We will affirm the convictions if there is probative evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

         [¶9] The State alleged that Parsley committed his offenses in conjunction with Ashlee and Joseph, and the trial court instructed the jury on accomplice liability. "A person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to commit an offense commits that offense . . . ." Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4 (1977). We consider the following factors in determining whether a defendant aided another in the commission of a crime: (1) presence at the scene of the crime; (2) companionship with another engaged in a crime; (3) failure to oppose the commission of the crime; and (4) the course of conduct before, during, and after the occurrence of the crime. Wieland v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1198, 1202 (Ind. 2000). Accomplice liability applies to the contemplated offense and to all acts that are a probable and natural consequence of the concerted action. Id. It is not necessary for the jury to find that a defendant participated in every element of the crime. Vitek v. State, 750 N.E.2d 346, 352 (Ind. 2001). Further, an accomplice may be convicted of aiding another person in committing an offense even if the other person is acquitted of the offense. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4.

         [¶10] Parsley claims the State failed to prove he had the mental culpability to commit the offenses of which he was convicted. A defendant's intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018). Circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to support a conviction. Jones v. State, 780 N.E.2d 373, 376 (Ind. 2002). Circumstantial evidence will be deemed sufficient if inferences may reasonably be drawn that enable ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.