Jacob R. Weaver 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 Nov 20 2019, 6:32 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Joseph P. Hunter Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Muncie, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tiffany A. McCoy
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jacob R. Weaver, November 20, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1054
v. Appeal from the Delaware Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Marianne L.
Appellee-Plaintiff Vorhees, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
18C01-1810-F5-167
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1054 | November 20, 2019 Page 1 of 5
[1] Following a bench trial, Jacob R. Weaver was convicted of Level 5 felony
domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. He
challenges only his battery conviction on appeal, seeking application of the
incredible dubiosity rule to establish insufficiency of the evidence.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Weaver and Kelci Gilliam dated off and on for many years and had previously
lived together. At the time in question, however, Gilliam was living in a home
with her mother and maternal grandparents.
[4] After midnight on June 25, 2018, Weaver was outside Gilliam’s residence
repeatedly calling her through Facebook Messenger. She did not answer
several calls and then responded to him with a text message telling him to leave
her alone. Weaver called several more times and sent her a text message
demanding that she answer the phone. After she had not answered his calls for
five minutes, he wrote her: “Are u stupid Come to the goddamnd [sic] wibdow
[sic].” Exhibits at 15. He called many more times and sent angry messages for
another ten minutes or so.
[5] Eventually, Gilliam went outside and spoke with him near her front yard.
Weaver was “really mad” and a verbal argument quickly ensued between the
two. Transcript at 53. Gilliam’s mother heard the argument and looked out the
window. Weaver proceeded to headbutt Gilliam, which caused her pain.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1054 | November 20, 2019 Page 2 of 5
Gilliam responded by throwing a makeup container at Weaver, striking him in
the face and breaking his glasses. Weaver then grabbed Gilliam by the hair and
started pulling her down the road. He let go of Gilliam when a neighbor came
outside and confronted him.
[6] In the meantime, Gilliam’s mother, Angela, had called 911 after seeing Weaver
headbutt Gilliam. Among other things, Angela reported to the dispatcher, “my
daughter’s ex-boyfriend is chasing her down the road and threatening her and
doing whatever he can to her.” Id. at 79. The dispatcher asked, “Did he hit
her?”, and Angela responded affirmatively. Id. at 80. Angela remained on the
phone with the dispatcher until the police arrived. Midway through the call
Gilliam made it back to the house, and the family locked themselves inside.
[7] Muncie Police Officers Bryan Ashton and Jacob Woods responded to the
dispatch, which came at 1:20 a.m. Upon arriving in the area, they observed a
man, later identified as Weaver, standing in the street just north of Gilliam’s
residence. Weaver fled north into an alley when Officer Ashton activated the
emergency lights on their marked police vehicle. Officer Ashton then chased
Weaver on foot, as Officer Woods drove around the block. Weaver was caught
trying to crawl under a parked vehicle.
[8] After Weaver was apprehended, Officer Ashton went to speak with Gilliam,
who was crying, upset, and seemed scared. She complained of pain to her
forehead, though Officer Ashton could see no visible injuries. Weaver,
however, had visible injuries to his nose and forehead.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1054 | November 20, 2019 Page 3 of 5
[9] On October 8, 2018, the State charged Weaver with domestic battery, resisting
law enforcement, and criminal trespass, all as Class A misdemeanors. The
State also filed a notice of intent to seek enhancement of the battery to a Level 5
felony based on a prior conviction for battery against Gilliam. Following a
bench trial on April 4, 2019, Weaver was convicted of Level 5 felony domestic
battery and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. On May 6, 2019,
the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of four years in prison.
On appeal, Weaver challenges only his conviction for domestic battery.
Discussion & Decision
[10] Likely aware that under the general sufficiency standard of review he would
lose on appeal, Weaver frames his argument in terms of the incredible dubiosity
rule. However, he does not appear to understand the extremely limited
application of this rule.
The incredible dubiosity rule allows the court to impinge upon
the [trier of fact’s] assessment of witness credibility when the
testimony at trial is so contradictory that the verdict reached
would be inherently improbable. For the incredible dubiosity
rule to apply, the evidence presented must be so unbelievable,
incredible, or improbable that no reasonable person could ever
reach a guilty verdict based upon that evidence alone.
Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 751 (Ind. 2015). Further, the witness’s testimony
must be wholly uncorroborated. That is, we will only impinge on the trier of
fact’s duty to judge witness credibility “where a sole witness presents inherently
contradictory testimony which is equivocal or the result of coercion and there is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1054 | November 20, 2019 Page 4 of 5
a complete lack of circumstantial evidence of the appellant’s guilt.” Id. at 755(emphases in original) (quoting Tillman v. State, 642 N.E.2d 221, 223 (Ind.
1994)).
[11] The incredible dubiosity rule is inapplicable here for several reasons. First,
there were two eyewitnesses to the battery, the victim and her mother, and both
testified at trial. Second, Gilliam’s testimony was not inherently contradictory,
equivocal, or the result of coercion. She unequivocally testified that Weaver
headbutted her and pulled her down the road by her hair until confronted by a
neighbor. 1 Further, corroborating evidence included Gilliam’s mother’s
testimony, the 911 recording, and the responding officers’ observations at the
scene, including Weaver’s flight, his visible facial injuries, and Gilliam’s
demeanor. Also admitted into evidence were the angry text messages sent and
repeated calls made by Weaver to Gilliam just before the battery. The evidence
is amply persuasive of Weaver’s guilt and comprises more than substantial
evidence to support the convictions. Accordingly, he may not receive relief
under the incredible dubiosity rule. See Tillman, 642 N.E.2d at 223.
[12] Judgment affirmed.
Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.
1
The minor inconsistencies noted by Weaver – regarding the length of their relationship and why she went
outside – are not relevant in terms of the incredible dubiosity rule, nor is the fact that Gilliam did not have
visible injuries immediately after the battery.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1054 | November 20, 2019 Page 5 of 5