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
SHARPNACK, SENIOR JUDGE.
of the Case
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; theft, a Level 5 felony; and five counts
of money laundering, all Level 6 felonies. We affirm.
Parsley raises one issue, which we restate as: whether there
is sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions.
and Procedural History
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Standard of Review
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.
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.
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