ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
TIMOTHY J. OCONNOR STEVE CARTER
OConnor & Auersch Attorney General of Indiana
GRANT H. CARLTON
Deputy Attorney General
SCOTT SAXTON, ) ) Appellant (Defendant Below ), ) 49S02-0306-CR-250 ) in the Supreme Court v. ) ) 49A02-0208-CR-657 STATE OF INDIANA, ) in the Court of Appeals ) Appellee (Plaintiff Below ). )
Saxton had served most of a twenty-year sentence for aggravated battery imposed in
1993. The last three years of the sentence had been suspended
Early in the morning on May 13, 2002, Jeffrey Davenport looked out the
window of his Marshall County home and saw Saxton standing on the central
air conditioning unit at the home next door, occupied by someone we will
call Jane Jones and her husband. Saxton was using this perch to
look into Jones bathroom window. Davenport asked his housemate to watch Saxton
while he went outside. While doing that, the housemate also telephoned 911.
Davenport went out into the yard and yelled at Saxton, who began to
run and eventually made his way to a nearby truck. Davenport tried
to stop Saxton from leaving, but after a brief scuffle Saxton managed to
drive away. Davenport got the plate number, though, and the housemate gave
it to the police over the telephone.
Saxton was in a sufficient hurry that he ran a stop sign, and
officer John Weir stopped him. Weir noticed that Saxtons plate number and
vehicle matched the description the police had received from the housemate, and Weir
took him into custody. Davenport later identified Saxton as the perpetrator.
The State sought to revoke Saxtons probation by alleging that he had committed
the crime of voyeurism, which is defined as peeping into an occupied dwelling
of another person without the consent of the other person. Ind. Code
Ann. § 35-45-4-5(a) (West 1998). Peeping is any looking of a clandestine,
surreptitious, prying, or secretive nature. Ind. Code Ann. § 35-45-4-5(b) (West
Saxton urges on appeal that the State did not establish that his peeping
was without permission, largely relying on the fact that there was no direct
evidence from Ms. Jones offered during the hearing. The Court of Appeals
agreed and reversed.
Saxton v. State, 784 N.E.2d 1022 (Ind. Ct. App.
2003). We granted transfer.
A trial court may revoke a sentence that has been suspended to probation
if the State establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the probationer
has violated a condition of probation. Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-2-3(e) (West
1998). In this case, the condition in question is straightforward: the
commission of a crime.
We conclude that the evidence was sufficient. Davenports housemate testified about suspecting
there was a peeping tom in the neighborhood as the result of observing
tracks in the snow from her home to Jones air conditioner, apparently sometime
before May 13
th. More probative, really, were the time of day and
Saxtons reaction to being discovered. Put in terms of sufficiency of the
evidence, the question becomes: can a trial court infer that someone caught
standing on an air conditioner staring into a womans bathroom at 5 a.m.
who runs off rather forcefully when challenged was a person peeping without the
permission of the target?
We say yes, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
DICKSON, SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.