Richard Wilson v. State of Indiana ( 2013 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
Dec 31 2013, 9:18 am
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
DEBORAH MARKISOHN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
RICHARD WILSON, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1304-CR-373
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Clayton Graham, Judge
The Honorable Anne Flannelly, Commissioner
Cause No. 49G17-1302-CM-11384
December 31, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Richard Wilson appeals his conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery with bodily
injury,1 asserting the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate he caused the bruises on the
arms of G.B. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 17, 2013, Wilson was living at a hotel with G.B. As they argued that
day, Wilson became angry, so G.B. suggested he go for a walk. Wilson then grabbed G.B.’s
arms and called her “a bitch.” (Tr. at 9.) Outside their hotel room, Wilson hit a hotel
employee on the head with his fist. Police arrived and placed Wilson in handcuffs. The
police found a red mark on the employee’s head where Wilson had hit him and bruises on
G.B.’s arms where Wilson had grabbed her. Wilson ran across the parking lot in an attempt
to avoid arrest, but police captured him.
The State filed the following charges against Wilson: two counts of Class A
misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury – one for grabbing G.B.,2 and one for hitting
the hotel employee; one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement;3 one count
of Class A misdemeanor interfering with the reporting of a crime;4 and one count of Class A
misdemeanor intimidation.5 Following a bench trial, the court entered convictions of the two
battery counts and the resisting count. The court ordered three concurrent sentences of 365
days.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(1)(A).
2
Wilson challenges only this conviction.
3
Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3).
4
Ind. Code § 35-45-2-5(1-3).
5
Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(2).
2
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we consider
only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the decision. Drane v.
State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is the fact-finder’s role, and not ours, to assess
witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a
conviction. Id. To preserve this structure, when we are confronted with conflicting
evidence, we consider it most favorably to the verdict. Id. We affirm a conviction unless no
reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. Id. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable
hypothesis of innocence; rather, the evidence is sufficient if an inference reasonably may be
drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. at 147.
To convict Wilson of Class A misdemeanor battery, the State had to demonstrate
Wilson touched G.B. “in a rude, insolent, or angry manner,” Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a), and
the touching resulted in “bodily injury” to G.B. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(1)(A). “‘Bodily
injury’ means any impairment of physical condition, including physical pain.” Ind. Code §
35-31.5-2-29. Red marks or bruising at the site of a touching have been held to be sufficient
evidence of “impairment of physical condition” to support the “bodily injury” required for a
conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery. Hanic v. State, 406 N.E.2d 335, 338 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1980).
G.B. testified that Wilson grabbed her arms hard “enough to leave the bruises.” (Tr. at
9.) The officer who responded first to the scene testified she “observed multiple bruises on
3
both of [G.B.’s] arms . . . [t]he back of her arms and the side of her arms.” (Id. at 33.)
Photographs of G.B.’s arms show the bruises.
Because we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we
cannot accept Wilson’s invitation to reject all of that evidence simply because the bruises
depicted in the photographs were not the color that he believed they would have been if he
had caused them that day. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146 (appellate court will not reweigh
evidence or judge witness credibility). The testimony from G.B. and the officer support his
conviction, and we accordingly affirm.
Affirmed.
RILEY, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.
4