James T. Hackney v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 7, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-64
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 07 2019, 9:06 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Ellen M. O’Connor Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Tiffany A. McCoy Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James T. Hackney, August 7, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-64 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela D. Davis, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G16-1810-CM-34531

Tavitas, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-64 | August 7, 2019 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] James Hackney appeals his conviction for domestic battery, a Class A

misdemeanor. We affirm.

Issue [2] Hackney raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence is sufficient

to sustain his conviction.

Facts [3] On October 10, 2018, Tracie Parker and her boyfriend, Hackney, left a bar and

started riding bicycles home. Parker was intoxicated and had the phone they

shared. At some point, the couple argued and got off their bicycles, and Parker

threw the phone. Parker “[took] off running,” and Hackney chased her. Tr.

Vol. II p. 28. Witnesses on the street called the police as a result of the

argument.

[4] Officer James Wallace with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department

was only a few hundred yards away from the area when he received a dispatch.

When Officer Wallace arrived on the scene seconds later, he observed Hackney

chasing Parker in the middle of the road, and they were running toward Officer

Wallace. Officer Wallace saw Hackney push Parker from behind. Parker

stumbled and fell down. Officer Wallace activated his emergency lights, and

Hackney yelled that Parker “stole his phone.” Id. at 20. During the

investigation, Hackney talked to Parker in a “threatening manner.” Id. at 21.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-64 | August 7, 2019 Page 2 of 5 Officer Wallace saw that Parker was “scared” and that she had fresh wounds on

her knee cap and elbow. Id.

[5] The State charged Hackney with domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor. At

a bench trial, Parker testified that Hackney “pushed [her] but not hard.” Id. at

9. Parker later described the touch as “just like a tap, like give me my phone . .

. .” Id. at 14. The trial court found Hackney guilty as charged. Hackney now

appeals.

Analysis [6] Hackney challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.

When there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e neither

reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Gibson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 204,

210 (Ind. 2016) (citing Bieghler v. State, 481 N.E.2d 78, 84 (Ind. 1985), reh’g

denied, cert. denied), reh’g denied, cert denied. Instead, “we ‘consider only that

evidence most favorable to the judgment together with all reasonable inferences

drawn therefrom.’” Id. (quoting Bieghler, 481 N.E.2d at 84). “We will affirm

the judgment if it is supported by ‘substantial evidence of probative value even

if there is some conflict in that evidence.’” Id. (quoting Bieghler, 481 N.E.2d at

84); see also McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 558 (Ind. 2018) (holding that,

even though there was conflicting evidence, it was “beside the point” because

that argument “misapprehend[s] our limited role as a reviewing court”).

Further, “[w]e will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could

find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Love v. State,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-64 | August 7, 2019 Page 3 of 5 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017) (citing Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.

2007)).

[7] Indiana Code Section 35-42-2-1.3(a) governs the offense of domestic battery

and provides: “[A] person who knowingly or intentionally: (1) touches a family

or household member in a rude, insolent, or angry manner . . . commits

domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor.” In the charging information, the

State alleged that Hackney “did knowingly touch Tracie Parker, a family or

household member, in a rude, insolent or angry manner by striking and/or

pushing Tracie . . . .” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 15. A person engages in

conduct “knowingly” if, “when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high

probability that he is doing so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b). “Evidence of

touching, however slight, is sufficient to support a conviction for battery.” Ball

v. State, 945 N.E.2d 252, 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

[8] Hackney argues that he did not push or strike Parker and that the “tap” was not

intended as a rude, insolent, or angry touch. Appellant’s Br. p. 7. The evidence

most favorable to the conviction, however, is that Hackney and Parker argued

over their phone after leaving a bar. Neighbors called police, and Officer

Wallace arrived on the scene quickly. Officer Wallace witnessed Hackney

chasing Parker and observed Hackney push Parker from behind. As a result,

Parker stumbled and fell down. Sufficient evidence exists from which the trial

court could infer that, by chasing and pushing Parker, Hackney knowingly

touched Parker in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Hackney’s arguments are

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-64 | August 7, 2019 Page 4 of 5 merely a request that we reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the

witnesses, which we cannot do.

[9] The State presented sufficient evidence to sustain Hackney’s conviction for

domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor.

Conclusion [10] The evidence is sufficient to sustain Hackney’s conviction. We affirm.

[11] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-64 | August 7, 2019 Page 5 of 5