MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Dec 16 2016, 8:31 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Thomas P. Keller Gregory F. Zoeller South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana J.T. Whitehead Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeremias Manriquez, December 16, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 71A05-1604-CR-802 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff. Elizabeth C. Hurley, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D08-1509-F6-628
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1604-CR-802 | December 16, 2016 Page 1 of 7 [1] Jeremias Manriquez (“Manriquez”) was convicted after a jury trial of two
counts of intimidation,1 each as a Level 6 felony, two counts of battery,2 each as
a Class A misdemeanor, one count of criminal mischief3 as a Class B
misdemeanor, and one count of resisting law enforcement 4 as a Class A
misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate four-year executed
sentence. On appeal, Manriquez appeals only his conviction for one count of
intimidation, contending that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to
support his conviction for Level 6 felony intimidation.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [3] On September 4, 2015, Manriquez went to the Pass Pets store located inside the
University Park Mall in Mishawaka, St. Joseph County, Indiana. While inside
the store, after walking behind an employee and making gestures to the
customer who the employee was speaking with, Manriquez began picking up
the store’s rabbits by the ears and the tops of their heads. One of the store
employees, Isabella Hess (“Hess”) saw Manriquez’s treatment of the rabbits
and asked him to leave the store.
1 See Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1. 2 See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1. 3 See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-2. 4 See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1604-CR-802 | December 16, 2016 Page 2 of 7 [4] Manriquez acted very rude to Hess, using profanity and calling her a “dumb
bitch.” Tr. at 18, 27. Manriquez approached Hess and “got in [her] face a little
bit,” yelling things at her. Id. at 15. Manriquez then walked toward the store
entrance and stopped. Hess told him to leave before the store employees called
the police and that her father was a police officer. Manriquez then stated “that
he didn’t care who [Hess] was, that he would slit her throat in the parking lot.”
Id. at 16. Hess felt threatened and believed Manriquez’s threats; she believed
his posture showed he meant what he stated because he puffed out his chest and
straightened his posture. Id. at 18, 19.
[5] The store manager, Abby Raven (“Raven”), was not inside the store when the
altercation began, but was summoned in shortly after by another employee.
When Raven heard Manriquez tell Hess he would see her in the parking lot,
Raven asked Manriquez to leave the store. Id. at 28, 36. He continued to be
loud and aggressive. When Manriquez refused to leave but was near the
entrance to the store, Raven walked to the entrance to close the door due to her
concern for the safety of the store’s employees and customers. Manriquez
punched Raven in the face. He then exited the store and the mall through a
door near the pet store and ran to Macy’s, which is located on the other side of
the mall.
[6] Raven told one of the store’s employees to call the mall security officers.
Mishawaka Police Department Officer Steve Egendoerfer (“Officer
Egendoerfer”) and mall security officer Thomas Erickson (“Erickson”) were the
first to respond to the call. Both were wearing uniforms and badges. Officer
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1604-CR-802 | December 16, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Egendoerfer saw Manriquez enter Macy’s and told Erickson, who located
Manriquez inside Macy’s and ordered him to stop. Manriquez nodded his head
“okay,” and when Erickson approached him, Manriquez punched Erickson in
the face and tried to tackle him. Id. at 42-43. Officer Egendoerfer arrived and
observed Erickson trying to subdue Manriquez by placing him on his stomach.
During this interaction, Manriquez threatened to kill both Erickson and Officer
Egendoerfer and told them that they were “going to pay.” Id. at 86. Manriquez
also said that he would have people “on the outside” find Officer Egendoerfer’s
family. Id. at 47, 86. Manriquez also threatened to hit Erickson again if
Erickson did not release him. Id. at 46-47.
[7] Manriquez continued to struggle and resist both Erickson and Officer
Egendoerfer’s attempts to restrain him. A third officer arrived, but the officers
were still unable to subdue Manriquez. Three more officers arrived on the
scene shortly thereafter, and as the six officers began to move Manriquez
outside, he kicked one of the officers. They eventually were able to get
Manriquez inside a patrol car, but once inside, he continued to struggle and
kick, which resulted in damage to the police vehicle. Manriquez remained
combative when he arrived at the jail, and several deputies had to assist in
removing him from the patrol car.
[8] The State charged Manriquez with two counts of Level 6 felony intimidation,
two counts of Class A misdemeanor battery, one count of Class B misdemeanor
criminal mischief, and one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law
enforcement. A jury trial was held, and Manriquez was found guilty on all
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1604-CR-802 | December 16, 2016 Page 4 of 7 counts. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of four years
executed. Manriquez now appeals his conviction for one count of intimidation.
Discussion and Decision [9] The deferential standard of review for sufficiency claims is well settled. When
we review the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we do not
reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. Boggs v. State,
928 N.E.2d 855, 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. We consider only the
evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences that can be
drawn from this evidence. Fuentes v. State, 10 N.E.3d 68, 75 (Ind. Ct. App.
2014), trans. denied. We also consider conflicting evidence in the light most
favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Oster v. State, 992 N.E.2d 871, 875 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2013), trans. denied. We will not disturb the jury’s verdict if there is
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Dec 16 2016, 8:31 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Thomas P. Keller Gregory F. Zoeller South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana J.T. Whitehead Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeremias Manriquez, December 16, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 71A05-1604-CR-802 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff. Elizabeth C. Hurley, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D08-1509-F6-628
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1604-CR-802 | December 16, 2016 Page 1 of 7 [1] Jeremias Manriquez (“Manriquez”) was convicted after a jury trial of two
counts of intimidation,1 each as a Level 6 felony, two counts of battery,2 each as
a Class A misdemeanor, one count of criminal mischief3 as a Class B
misdemeanor, and one count of resisting law enforcement 4 as a Class A
misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate four-year executed
sentence. On appeal, Manriquez appeals only his conviction for one count of
intimidation, contending that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to
support his conviction for Level 6 felony intimidation.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [3] On September 4, 2015, Manriquez went to the Pass Pets store located inside the
University Park Mall in Mishawaka, St. Joseph County, Indiana. While inside
the store, after walking behind an employee and making gestures to the
customer who the employee was speaking with, Manriquez began picking up
the store’s rabbits by the ears and the tops of their heads. One of the store
employees, Isabella Hess (“Hess”) saw Manriquez’s treatment of the rabbits
and asked him to leave the store.
1 See Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1. 2 See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1. 3 See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-2. 4 See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1604-CR-802 | December 16, 2016 Page 2 of 7 [4] Manriquez acted very rude to Hess, using profanity and calling her a “dumb
bitch.” Tr. at 18, 27. Manriquez approached Hess and “got in [her] face a little
bit,” yelling things at her. Id. at 15. Manriquez then walked toward the store
entrance and stopped. Hess told him to leave before the store employees called
the police and that her father was a police officer. Manriquez then stated “that
he didn’t care who [Hess] was, that he would slit her throat in the parking lot.”
Id. at 16. Hess felt threatened and believed Manriquez’s threats; she believed
his posture showed he meant what he stated because he puffed out his chest and
straightened his posture. Id. at 18, 19.
[5] The store manager, Abby Raven (“Raven”), was not inside the store when the
altercation began, but was summoned in shortly after by another employee.
When Raven heard Manriquez tell Hess he would see her in the parking lot,
Raven asked Manriquez to leave the store. Id. at 28, 36. He continued to be
loud and aggressive. When Manriquez refused to leave but was near the
entrance to the store, Raven walked to the entrance to close the door due to her
concern for the safety of the store’s employees and customers. Manriquez
punched Raven in the face. He then exited the store and the mall through a
door near the pet store and ran to Macy’s, which is located on the other side of
the mall.
[6] Raven told one of the store’s employees to call the mall security officers.
Mishawaka Police Department Officer Steve Egendoerfer (“Officer
Egendoerfer”) and mall security officer Thomas Erickson (“Erickson”) were the
first to respond to the call. Both were wearing uniforms and badges. Officer
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1604-CR-802 | December 16, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Egendoerfer saw Manriquez enter Macy’s and told Erickson, who located
Manriquez inside Macy’s and ordered him to stop. Manriquez nodded his head
“okay,” and when Erickson approached him, Manriquez punched Erickson in
the face and tried to tackle him. Id. at 42-43. Officer Egendoerfer arrived and
observed Erickson trying to subdue Manriquez by placing him on his stomach.
During this interaction, Manriquez threatened to kill both Erickson and Officer
Egendoerfer and told them that they were “going to pay.” Id. at 86. Manriquez
also said that he would have people “on the outside” find Officer Egendoerfer’s
family. Id. at 47, 86. Manriquez also threatened to hit Erickson again if
Erickson did not release him. Id. at 46-47.
[7] Manriquez continued to struggle and resist both Erickson and Officer
Egendoerfer’s attempts to restrain him. A third officer arrived, but the officers
were still unable to subdue Manriquez. Three more officers arrived on the
scene shortly thereafter, and as the six officers began to move Manriquez
outside, he kicked one of the officers. They eventually were able to get
Manriquez inside a patrol car, but once inside, he continued to struggle and
kick, which resulted in damage to the police vehicle. Manriquez remained
combative when he arrived at the jail, and several deputies had to assist in
removing him from the patrol car.
[8] The State charged Manriquez with two counts of Level 6 felony intimidation,
two counts of Class A misdemeanor battery, one count of Class B misdemeanor
criminal mischief, and one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law
enforcement. A jury trial was held, and Manriquez was found guilty on all
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1604-CR-802 | December 16, 2016 Page 4 of 7 counts. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of four years
executed. Manriquez now appeals his conviction for one count of intimidation.
Discussion and Decision [9] The deferential standard of review for sufficiency claims is well settled. When
we review the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we do not
reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. Boggs v. State,
928 N.E.2d 855, 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. We consider only the
evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences that can be
drawn from this evidence. Fuentes v. State, 10 N.E.3d 68, 75 (Ind. Ct. App.
2014), trans. denied. We also consider conflicting evidence in the light most
favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Oster v. State, 992 N.E.2d 871, 875 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2013), trans. denied. We will not disturb the jury’s verdict if there is
substantial evidence of probative value to support it. Fuentes, 10 N.E.3d at 75.
We will affirm unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Lock v. State, 971 N.E.2d 71, 74 (Ind.
2012). As the reviewing court, we respect “the jury’s exclusive province to
weigh conflicting evidence.” McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005).
[10] Manriquez argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support
his conviction for the one count of Level 6 felony intimidation relating to Hess.5
5 Manriquez does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for his remaining convictions and concedes that the evidence presented was sufficient on all those counts. Appellant’s Br. at 4 n.1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1604-CR-802 | December 16, 2016 Page 5 of 7 He specifically contends that insufficient evidence was presented that he
threatened Hess. Although Manriquez concedes that Hess testified that he
threatened to slit her throat, he alleges that such a threat was not supported by
the testimony of Raven, who did not testify that she heard the threat despite
being present. Manriquez, therefore, asserts that his conviction for intimidation
as related to Hess should be reversed.
[11] In order to convict Manriquez of intimidation as a Level 6 felony, the State was
required to prove that he communicated a threat to Hess with the intent that
she be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act and that the threat was
to commit a forcible felony. Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(2), (b)(1). “It is well-
established that ‘the uncorroborated testimony of one witness may be sufficient
by itself to sustain a conviction on appeal.’” Scott v. State, 871 N.E.2d 341, 343
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied.
[12] Manriquez’s only challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
conviction is that the State failed to prove that he communicated a threat to
Hess. The evidence presented at his jury trial showed that, while in the pet
store, Manriquez was observed inappropriately picking up the rabbits by their
ears and the tops of their heads. Hess asked Manriquez to leave the store, and
he began acting very rude to Hess, using profanity, and calling her a “dumb
bitch.” Tr. at 18, 27. Manriquez approached Hess and “got in [her] face a little
bit,” yelling things at her. Id. at 15. Hess then told Manriquez to leave the
store before the store employees called the police and that her father was a
police officer. Manriquez responded “that he didn’t care who [Hess] was, that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1604-CR-802 | December 16, 2016 Page 6 of 7 he would slit her throat in the parking lot.” Id. at 16. Hess testified that she felt
threatened and believed Manriquez’s threats because he puffed out his chest
and straightened his posture, which she took as a sign that he meant what he
stated. Id. at 18, 19.
[13] Manriquez contends that Hess’s testimony was not sufficient to prove that he
threatened her because Raven did not testify that she heard the threat.
However, Raven testified that she was not inside the store when the altercation
between Manriquez and Hess began and was summoned in shortly after by
another employee. Id. at 27. Although Raven did not testify that she heard
Manriquez threaten to slit Hess’s throat in the parking lot, she did testify that
she heard Manriquez tell Hess he would see her in the parking lot; at that time,
Raven asked Manriquez to leave the store. Id. at 28, 36. We, therefore,
conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Manriquez’s
conviction for intimidation as a Level 6 felony. His arguments to the contrary
are merely a request to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. Boggs, 928
N.E.2d at 864.
[14] Affirmed.
May, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1604-CR-802 | December 16, 2016 Page 7 of 7