Donald Carlisle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 17, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-1154
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 17 2019, 7:34 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Sally Skodinski Curtis T. Hill, Jr. South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Samantha M. Sumcad Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Donald Carlisle, December 17, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1154 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable John M. Appellee-Plaintiff Marnocha, Judge The Honorable Julie P. Verheye, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 71D04-1809-CM-3019

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1154 | December 17, 2019 Page 1 of 5 [1] Donald Carlisle appeals his conviction for Class A Misdemeanor Battery,1

arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Finding the

evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts [2] On September 3, 2018, Carlisle and Allison Angel were at Angel’s house in

South Bend. That morning, Angel tried to remove Carlisle’s drug pipe from his

pocket while he was still sleeping. Carlisle woke up and became infuriated.

Angel testified that as she began to lie down, “all of a sudden I felt something

bam in my face.” Tr. Vol. II p. 6. Angel remembered there being a bottle of

vodka right next to the bed. She believed that Carlisle had struck her with the

bottle and that the wallop had felt “[j]ust like an explosion.” Id. at 7. Angel then

ran to her neighbor’s house to call the police.

[3] Two officers were dispatched to the scene. South Bend Police Department

Officer Charles Rothy spoke with Angel and photographed her face, noticing a

large bump over her eye. Officer Anthony Ieraci was also dispatched, but on the

way there, he ended up finding Carlisle’s vehicle and pulling him over. Officer

Ieraci saw that Carlisle had dried blood on his hands, and Carlisle stated that

the blood was Angel’s.

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), -1(d)(1). The statutory citation in the trial court’s sentencing order—and throughout the Chronological Case Summary—is incomplete. As such, we have corrected this scrivener’s error with the complete citation for Class A misdemeanor battery.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1154 | December 17, 2019 Page 2 of 5 [4] On September 5, 2018, the State charged Carlisle with one count of Class A

misdemeanor battery. Following Carlisle’s April 25, 2019, bench trial, at which

Angel, Officer Rothy, and Officer Ieraci all testified, the trial court found

Carlisle guilty as charged. The next day, April 26, 2019, the trial court

sentenced Carlisle to 20 days executed in the Department of Correction and 345

days of probation, with a no-contact order in place to protect Angel for the

duration of Carlisle’s probation. Carlisle now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [5] Carlisle’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to

support his conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery. When reviewing the

sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we must affirm if the

probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom could have

allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). It is not

our job to reweigh the evidence or to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and

we consider any conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.

Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind. 2005).

[6] To convict Carlisle of Class A misdemeanor battery, the State was required to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Carlisle knowingly or intentionally

touched Angel in a rude, insolent, or angry manner and that the touching

resulted in bodily injury to her. I.C. § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), -1(d)(1).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1154 | December 17, 2019 Page 3 of 5 [7] First, we find that Carlisle’s reliance on the incredible dubiosity rule is

misplaced. “Application of [the incredible dubiosity rule] is very narrow and

permitted only ‘where a sole witness presents inherently contradictory

testimony that is equivocal or coerced and there is a lack of circumstantial

evidence of guilt.’” Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1059 (Ind. 2011) (quoting

Whedon v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1276, 1278 (Ind. 2002)). Here, Angel was not the

sole witness testifying—Officers Rothy and Ieraci also testified. Consequently,

the incredible dubiosity rule does not apply in Carlisle’s case.

[8] Next, the evidence shows that on the night of the incident, Angel attempted to

remove Carlisle’s drug pipe from his pocket while he was sleeping. Then, Angel

testified that she felt a smashing over her head that resulted in a large bump and

felt like an explosion. Angel remembered seeing a vodka bottle next to the bed,

and it is undisputed that Angel and Carlisle were the only two individuals

inside the room at the time. The State proffered photographs taken by Officer

Rothy showing Angel’s injuries and her condition immediately following the

attack. Additionally, Officer Ieraci pulled Carlisle over and noticed that there

was dried blood on Carlisle’s hands. Carlisle even admitted that the blood on

his hands was not his, but Angel’s.

[9] A reasonable factfinder could have inferred that Carlisle struck Angel with the

vodka bottle from the facts that the bottle was by the bed, no one else was

present, Angel felt something smash on her head, and she was injured as a

result. In other words, based on this evidence, a reasonable factfinder could

have convicted Carlisle of Class A misdemeanor battery. In considering all

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1154 | December 17, 2019 Page 4 of 5 evidence and inferences most favorably to the verdict, we find the evidence

sufficient to support the conviction.

[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1154 | December 17, 2019 Page 5 of 5