Raymond Christian v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
Dec 21 2020, 10:08 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Valerie K. Boots Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Brian A. Karle Ian T. Mathew
Ball Eggleston, P.C. Angela Sanchez
Lafayette, Indiana Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Raymond Christian, December 21, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-1398
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela Dow
Appellee-Plaintiff. Davis, Judge
The Honorable H. Patrick
Murphy, Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G16-1808-CM-27179
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1398 | December 21, 2020 Page 1 of 6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Raymond Christian (Christian), appeals his 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] Christian present this court with one issue, which we restate as: Whether the
State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed battery resulting in
bodily injury.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On or about August 17, 2018, Shayla Beasley (Beasley) was working at a fast-
food restaurant in Marion County when her on-again-off-again romantic
interest, Christian, came in around 9:00 p.m. Christian sought a cellphone that
was in Beasley’s possession, but Beasley did not wish to relinquish it. However,
Christian subsequently left the restaurant with the cellphone.
[5] Later that evening after she left work, Beasley encountered Christian near her
workplace and demanded the return of the cellphone. The two argued, and
Beasley repeatedly reached for the cellphone. Christian retreated from each
reach. Unable to obtain the cellphone, Beasley walked away from Christian,
who grabbed her arm and pulled her back to him, which, according to Beasley
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1398 | December 21, 2020 Page 2 of 6
“hurt.” (Transcript pp. 9-10). Beasley went home, called 911, and reported her
encounter with Christian.
[6] On August 17, 2018, the State filed an Information, charging Christian with
three Class A misdemeanors: domestic battery, battery resulting in bodily
injury, and theft. After the State filed its Information, Beasley contacted the
police several times seeking to have the charges dropped. On July 20, 2020, the
trial court held Christian’s bench trial. Beasley was the only witness for the
State and testified regarding the August 17, 2018, events. On cross-
examination, Beasley acknowledged that she had attempted to have the charges
against Christian dropped but explained that it was not because her report of his
conduct had been false, but because the two had reconciled. Christian testified
on his own behalf and denied ever touching Beasley during the evening in
question.
[7] The trial court found Christian not-guilty of the domestic battery and theft
charges but guilty of battery resulting in bodily injury. The trial court
proceeded directly to sentencing and imposed a 365-day sentence, all suspended
without probation, and ordered Christian to complete twelve anger
management classes.
[8] Christian now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[9] Christian challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.
Our standard of review of such claims is well-settled: When we review the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1398 | December 21, 2020 Page 3 of 6
sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we consider only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v.
State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is not our role as an appellate court to
assess witness credibility or to weigh the evidence. Id. We will affirm the
conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[10] A defendant commits Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury
when he “knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude,
insolent, or angry manner” that “results in bodily injury to any other person[.]”
I.C. §§ 35-42-2-1(c)(1); (d)(1). “Bodily injury” is defined as “any impairment of
physical condition, including physical pain.” I.C. § 35-31.5-2-29. Therefore, in
order to prove the offense, the State was required to prove that Christian
touched Beasley in a rude, insolent, or angry manner that caused her pain.
[11] Here, Beasley testified that, during an argument, she walked away from
Christian; he grabbed her arm and pulled her back to him; and it caused her
pain. “Evidence of touching, however slight, is sufficient to support a
conviction for battery.” Wolf v. State, 76 N.E.3d 911, 915 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
We conclude that this evidence sustained the trial court’s determination that
Christian committed Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury.
See K.D. v. State, 754 N.E.2d 36, 40-41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (sustaining K.D.’s
adjudication for battery for an act of insolent pulling).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1398 | December 21, 2020 Page 4 of 6
[12] Christian argues that we should apply the incredible dubiosity rule and reverse
his conviction. “Under this rule, a court will impinge on the [fact-finder’s]
responsibility to judge the credibility of the witnesses only when it has
confronted inherently improbable testimony or coerced, equivocal, wholly
uncorroborated testimony of incredible dubiosity.” Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d
749, 755 (Ind. 2015) (quotations omitted). A reviewing court will apply the rule
only where a sole witness presents inherently contradictory testimony that is
equivocal or the result of coercion and there is a complete lack of circumstantial
evidence of the appellant’s guilt. Id.
[13] While we agree with Christian’s observations that Beasley was the sole witness
who testified that he pulled on her arm and that there was no circumstantial
evidence of his guilt, we cannot agree with his contention that “Beasley’s
version of events was contradictory and equivocal.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 8).
Beasley testified that Christian pulled her arm. On cross-examination, when
confronted with the fact that she had attempted several times to have the
charges dropped, Beasley never stated that she did so because her report was
false, nor did she recant her statements to police. Beasley also denied ever
reporting that Christian’s act of pulling her arm did not hurt. Because Beasley’s
testimony was not “inherently improbable,” “inherently contradictory,” or
“equivocal,” we sustain Christian’s conviction. Moore, 27 N.E.3d at 755.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1398 | December 21, 2020 Page 5 of 6
CONCLUSION
[14] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the State proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that Christian committed the offense of Class A misdemeanor battery
resulting in bodily injury.
[15] Affirmed.
[16] Najam, J. and Crone, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1398 | December 21, 2020 Page 6 of 6