Rachel Bull v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 24 2019, 10:01 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Rory Gallagher Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Rachel Bull, September 24, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-759
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Linda E. Brown,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
The Honorable Steven Rubick,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G10-1802-CM-3858
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-759 | September 24, 2019 Page 1 of 6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Rachel Bull (Bull), appeals her conviction for battery
resulting in bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1); -
(d)(1).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Bull raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the State
provided sufficient evidence to support Bull’s conviction for battery beyond a
reasonable doubt.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] For about two years prior to this incident, Bull was an employee at DJ’s
Lounge (DJ’s), a bar in Marion County, Indiana. At the time of Bull’s
employment, DJ’s was managed by Jeanann Gunter (Gunter). On December
29, 2017, three days before the incident, Gunter fired Bull because she “found
that Bull had been giving a large quantity of liquor and beer to friends of hers
who frequented the bar.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 13). She also prohibited
Bull from the lounge after her termination. On the night of December 31, 2017,
Bull, who appeared to be intoxicated, walked into DJ’s during a New Year’s
Eve party. Gunter asked Bull to leave, but she refused and instead “became
very loud and began to curse at Gunter.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 14). She
was angry at Gunter “because [Gunter] didn’t pay her the money she owed
her.” (Transcript Vol. II, p. 13). While yelling at Gunter, Bull proceeded to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-759 | September 24, 2019 Page 2 of 6
pick up beer bottles and throw them behind the bar where Gunter was standing
at the time. Gunter was hit in the arm, “causing pain and redness.” (Tr. Vol. II,
p. 6). A few patrons at the lounge intervened in Bull’s attack, after which she
collected her coat and purse and left the lounge.
[5] On February 1, 2018, the State filed an Information, charging Bull with battery
resulting in bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor. On March 8, 2019, a bench
trial was conducted. At the close of the evidence, Bull was found guilty as
charged. The trial court sentenced Bull to 365 days executed, with 361 days
suspended. She received credit for two days served and two days of good-time
credit. She was placed on supervised probation for 180 days.
[6] Bull now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[7] Bull contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt to sustain her conviction for battery resulting in bodily injury.
Specifically, she contends that the State failed to prove that she knowingly
struck Gunter with a beer bottle, which is an element needed to prove battery
resulting in bodily injury.
[8] Our standard of review with regard to sufficiency claims is well settled. In
reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this court does not reweigh the
evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Agilera v. State, 862 N.E.2d
298, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) trans. denied. We will consider only the evidence
most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-759 | September 24, 2019 Page 3 of 6
and will affirm if the evidence and those inferences constitute substantial
evidence of probative value to support the judgment. Id. A conviction may be
based upon circumstantial evidence alone. Id. Reversal is appropriate only
when reasonable persons would not be able to form inferences as to each
material element of the offense. Abney v. State, 822 N.E.2d 260, 264 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2005).
[9] In order to prove a person committed battery as a Class A misdemeanor under
Indiana law, the State must show that the person “knowingly or intentionally
touched another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner” and that this
touching “resulted in bodily injury to another person.” I.C. § 35-42-2-1. A
person engages in conduct “knowingly” if, when engaging in conduct, he “is
aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2. This court
has set out the factors used for determining one’s mental state in regard to
criminal intent in Hedrick v. State, 124 N.E.3d 1273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019):
Because intent is a mental state, the fact-finder often must resort
to the reasonable inferences based upon an examination of the
surrounding circumstances to determine whether—from the
person's conduct and the natural consequences therefrom—there
is a showing or inference of the requisite criminal intent. In
making, this determination, the fact-finder looks to the person’s
conduct and the natural consequences therefrom.
Id. at 1281.
[10] The State relies on a previous case from this court that gives insight on
determining intentional conduct. In McGuire v. State, 625 N.E.2d 1281, 1281
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-759 | September 24, 2019 Page 4 of 6
(Ind. Ct. App. 1993), McGuire and his friend were given a ride home by
Lambert upon the agreement that McGuire would give Lambert money for gas.
When they arrived at McGuire’s destination, McGuire and his friend exited
Lambert’s vehicle without a mention of the promised gas money. Id. When
Lambert asked McGuire if he intended to give her the gas money, McGuire
started to shout at Lambert and call her names. Id. He then threw a beer bottle
at Lambert’s car, causing damage to the passenger side of the vehicle. Id.
McGuire was charged with battery, a class A misdemeanor, and criminal
mischief, a class A misdemeanor. He was found not guilty of battery, but was
found guilty of criminal mischief, a class B misdemeanor, a lesser included
offense of the criminal mischief charge. Id. at 1281-1282. McGuire appealed
his conviction with one issue being that the State did not provide sufficient
evidence to sustain his conviction, stating that “the state failed to prove that he
threw the beer bottle with intent to damage the car.” Id. This court held that
the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. The court stated, “In the
context of events, it is reasonable to infer reckless, knowing, or intentional
conduct. The beer bottle was thrown during an argument.” Id.
[11] In the present case, the State provided testimonial evidence of Bull’s conduct
that night to prove that Bull had the “knowing” mens rea required in
committing a battery. Bull came into the bar that night after being trespassed
from the property; she was already “drunk and disoriented” when she got there;
a verbal altercation ensued between her and Gunter after which she was asked
to leave the bar; Bull admitted to being angry with Gunter the night of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-759 | September 24, 2019 Page 5 of 6
incident when she came to the bar because Gunter wouldn’t pay her the money
that she allegedly owed Bull; and, although there is some disagreement on how
many beer bottles Bull threw that night, Bull admitted to picking up and
throwing at least one bottle. (Tr. Vol. II, pp. 4, 13). Gunter testified that Bull
threw three or four bottles “at” her. (Tr. Vol. II, pp. 4, 6). Upon considering
the events in the present case, it is reasonable to infer that Bull knowingly hit
Gunter with a beer bottle and caused bodily injury.
[12] Given the totality of the evidence, we find that there is sufficient evidence to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bull committed battery.
CONCLUSION
[13] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the State did provide sufficient evidence to
support Bull’s conviction for battery.
[14] Affirmed.
[15] Vaidik, C. J. and Bradford, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-759 | September 24, 2019 Page 6 of 6