Dante Gooch v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2021 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 13 2021, 8:54 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Joel M. Schumm Theodore E. Rokita
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Alexis Sizemore, Certified Legal Intern Christa K. Kumming
Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Dante Gooch, January 13, 2021
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-1266
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela Dow
Appellee-Plaintiff Davis, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G16-2001-F6-1999
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1266 | January 13, 2021 Page 1 of 5
[1] Dante Gooch appeals his conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery. 1 He
asserts the State’s evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In the early afternoon of January 14, 2020, Kathryn Haverfield was smoking a
cigarette while standing on the balcony of her third story apartment. The
balcony was on the back of her apartment and allowed her to see the “open
community quad” between all the apartment buildings. (Tr. Vol. II at 6.)
Haverfield saw Gooch walking in the quad with a toddler and a woman who
was carrying a baby in a car seat. Gooch and the woman were yelling at each
other and arguing, and then Gooch hit the woman and knocked the car seat
from her hand. The woman and the car seat both fell to the ground, and the
baby and toddler began to cry. Haverfield snapped a picture and called 911.
[3] Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Carlos Pettiford arrived
at the scene and encountered Gooch, who was sitting in a car with two females,
neither of which was the woman from the quad. The woman from the quad
was K.D.J., and Officer Pettiford described her as follows:
She was with tears running down her face. She didn’t want to
talk to the police; she was scared. She had bruise marks on her
forehead; swollen eyes; light scratch marks; fresh cut on her leg.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1266 | January 13, 2021 Page 2 of 5
I think it was dust or asphalt or something that was on her legs
but I couldn’t really tell at the time.
(Tr. Vol. II at 20.) The fresh cut on K.D.J.’s leg was bleeding. Police took a
statement from Haverfield at the scene and also spoke with K.D.J. and Gooch.
[4] The State charged Gooch with Level 6 felony domestic battery, 2 Level 6 felony
battery on a person less than fourteen years old, 3 and Class B misdemeanor
battery. Gooch waived his right to trial by jury. After the State presented
testimony from Haverfield and Officer Pettiford, the court granted Gooch’s
motion to dismiss the two felony counts for failure to present evidence as to
some elements of those crimes. Gooch then testified, and the State recalled
Haverfield for rebuttal testimony. The court found Gooch guilty of Class B
misdemeanor battery. The court imposed a 180-day sentence, suspended 146 of
those days to probation, and ordered Gooch to complete anger management
classes.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Gooch asserts the State presented insufficient evidence to prove he battered
K.D.J. Our standard of review for such arguments is well-settled:
For sufficiency challenges, we neither reweigh evidence nor
judge witness credibility. We consider only the evidence most
2
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1) & (b)(2).
3
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1) & (e)(3).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1266 | January 13, 2021 Page 3 of 5
favorable to the judgment together with all reasonable inferences
that may be drawn from the evidence. We will affirm the
judgment if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if the
evidence is conflicting.
McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 558 (Ind. 2018) (internal citations omitted).
“[T]he uncorroborated testimony of one witness may be sufficient by itself to
sustain a conviction on appeal.” Johnson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 255, 256 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2004).
[6] Gooch was convicted of Class B misdemeanor battery, which required the State
to prove he touched K.D.J. in a rude, insolent or angry manner. See Ind. Code
§ 35-42-2-1(c)(1) (defining battery). (See also Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 20
(charging information).) Gooch asserts the State’s evidence is insufficient
because Haverfield saw the interaction from three stories above, because K.D.J.
did not testify or give a police report, and because no pictures were taken to
prove K.D.J.’s injuries. However, those arguments “amount to an invitation
that we reweigh the evidence and the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot
do.” Johnson, 804 N.E.2d at 257.
[7] Haverfield testified that she saw Gooch hit K.D.J. as Gooch and K.D.J. walked
through the quad area toward the parking lot. Haverfield testified that K.D.J.
fell down, which is corroborated by Officer Pettiford’s testimony that K.D.J.
had a fresh cut on her leg that was bleeding and also had dust or asphalt on her
legs. Officer Pettiford also testified that K.D.J. was crying, was scared, and did
not want to talk to police. Gooch testified he did not “slap” K.D.J., but instead
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1266 | January 13, 2021 Page 4 of 5
he moved her so that a vehicle could pull out without hitting her, (Tr. Vol. II at
33); however, Haverfield testified in rebuttal that the quad is a “5 block area of
like grass and there’s some trees” but there is no place to park a car in the quad.
(Id. at 34.) The evidence is sufficient to support the court’s finding of guilt. See,
e.g., Johnson, 804 N.E.2d at 257 (testimony of single witness, who was not the
victim, was sufficient to support conviction of battery).
Conclusion
[8] The State’s evidence was sufficient to prove Gooch touched K.D.J. in a rude,
insolent, or angry manner, and we therefore affirm his conviction.
[9] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Bradford, C.J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1266 | January 13, 2021 Page 5 of 5