Rush, C.J.
Juries decide a host of fact-sensitive disputes. Did the defendant kill “knowingly”? Resist “forcibly”? Drive “recklessly”? When the jury returns a guilty verdict and the defendant appeals the sufficiency of the evidence, our job is not to proclaim what we would have done as jurors.
….
Here, a jury found defendant Corey McAlpin guilty of committing various meth-related crimes with a drug-free-zone enhancement. Specifically, the jury determined that the crimes occurred near a public park where a minor’s presence was “reasonably expected.” …
Nestled against the Ohio River, tucked away in rolling hills and limestone bluffs, lies picturesque Madison, Indiana. For that historic river town, Thursday, August 21, 2014, began as “just your normal” peaceful summer morning. …
But something had been cooking on West Second Street—and it wasn’t apple pie. Around 10:00 a.m., a team of police entered Corey McAlpin’s apartment and noticed a “horrible” odor, like that of “50 cats . . . with no litter box.” They soon learned why: the apartment was an active methamphetamine lab. … McAlpin was arrested on the spot.
Two blocks from this meth operation sits Bicentennial Park… this city park features a wide-open green space surrounded by a residential neighborhood. It also has an outdoor amphitheater, restrooms, convenient parking, and sidewalks wrapping around and cutting within. The park does not, however, have benches, playgrounds, or trees…
The State used Bicentennial Park’s proximity to McAlpin’s apartment to enhance his charges to Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 5 felony possession of precursors, and Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine. To prove these drug-free-zone enhancements, the State needed to show that McAlpin committed the crimes “within five hundred (500) feet of a public park . . . while a person under eighteen (18) years of age was reasonably expected to be present.”
….
After the jury’s guilty verdicts, the court entered a conviction on Level 4 felony dealing methamphetamine and merged the other two counts. … The court sentenced McAlpin to ten years.
McAlpin appealed, and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the drug-free zone enhancement and remanded for resentencing. The majority found insufficient evidence that a child was “reasonably expected” to be present at Bicentennial Park when McAplin’s crimes occurred because schools were in session and the park lacked traditional park fixtures like trees, benches, and playgrounds. McAlpin v. State, 72 N.E.3d 940, 944 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). …
….
The existence of a statutory enhancement is a “fact-sensitive” determination, reviewed under our deferential sufficiency standard of review. Erkins v. State, 13 N.E.3d 400, 409 (Ind. 2014); Buelna v. State, 20 N.E.3d 137, 141 (Ind. 2014). …
Methamphetamine destroys lives. … To protect youth, the General Assembly has created drug-free-zone enhancements that boost penalties for meth dealing …
Here, the parties agree that Bicentennial Park was a “public park” and that it sat within 500 feet of McAlpin’s meth lab. They dispute only whether sufficient evidence proved that a minor’s presence in the park was “reasonably expected.” …
….
Though the statute does not define the “reasonably expected” element, the parties correctly agree on its fact-sensitive, objective nature. See Short v. Estwing Mfg. Corp., 634 N.E.2d 798, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). …
McAlpin acknowledges on appeal that the “reasonably expected” standard permits a range of evidence, but he asserts that the State failed to present what he calls the “best evidence”—that children typically use Bicentennial Park even while school is in session. …
… The jury knew that Bicentennial Park is not buried in an exclusively industrial or commercial district, where homes and families are sparse. Instead, the park is surrounded by residences. … The jury could reasonably conclude that this field, especially on a pleasant summer morning, is an attractive place for minors to unwind—to run, walk, crawl, throw a frisbee, fly a kite, play catch, play tag, play Red-Rover, and indulge in countless other youthful pastimes.
….
In sum, this is a fact-sensitive issue that we ask juries to resolve by drawing—or not drawing—certain inferences. See, e.g., Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 964–65 (Ind. 2014). … In making those judgment calls, the jury applies its “experiences in life,” “common sense,” and the “conscience of our society” as it “take[s] into account all of the facts and circumstances.” … With that in mind, we decline McAlpin’s invitation to invade the jury’s province and thus reject his sufficiency claim.
To protect Hoosier youth from methamphetamine, our General Assembly has enhanced the penalty for dealing the drug within 500 feet of a public park where a person under 18 was “reasonably expected” to be present. Here, after seeing and hearing the evidence, the jury found the “reasonably expected” element satisfied. Unable to second-guess that fact-sensitive decision, we affirm McAlpin’s enhanced conviction.
David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.