Attorney Shay Hughes does a deep dive into the Westerman charge;
here is just one comment. There's more at his link.
Shay Hughes@publicdefender_
Mitch Westerman was charged w/ 1 count of conversion. The PC affidavit states Westerman “used his cellular phone to take photographs of photographs, which were in Baldwin’s conference room area.” For conversion, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt 1) Westerman 2) knowingly or intentionally 3) exerted unauthorized control 4) over property of Baldwin.
But I’m having trouble coming to the conclusion that such conduct even amounts to conversion. “Exert control over property” means to obtain, take, carry, drive, lead away, conceal, abandon, sell, convey, encumber, or possess property, or to secure, transfer, or extend a right to property. Absent from this definition is any act resembling photography. Given such an act is not addressed w/ the definition, there are related issues regarding intent.
Moreover, I could not locate any Indiana authority in support of the State’s theory of prosecution. Nevertheless, in the context of a vehicle, the Court of Appeals held that mere presence as a passenger in a stolen car did not constitute control to support a conviction for conversion. Irvin v. State, 501 NE2d 1139, 1142 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). More specifically, the court rejected the State’s argument that occupying space inside the vehicle constitutes control. Thus, if occupying property does not constitute control, it logically follows that taking a photo of property also does not constitute control. #RichardAllen #Delphi #DelphiMurders
9:32 PM · Nov 22, 2023
1,577 Views