MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 17 2015, 9:02 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Douglas R. Long Gregory F. Zoeller Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Justin F. Roebel Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Marvin Hester, September 17, 2015 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 48A02-1501-CR-28 v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela Warner Appellee-Plaintiff Sims, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 48C01-1309-FD-1712
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1501-CR-28 | September 17, 2015 Page 1 of 9 Case Summary and Issue [1] Following a bench trial, Marvin Hester was convicted of pointing a firearm at
another person, a Class D felony. He raises two issues for our review, which
we consolidate and restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his
conviction. Concluding the evidence was sufficient to prove Hester’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] In August of 2013, Hester lived with his mother, Deborah Hester, in her
residence in Anderson, Indiana. On August 31, police were called to the
residence following a report of a son pointing a firearm at his mother. When
police arrived, Deborah explained Hester pointed a firearm at her while she was
in the home office. Further, after learning the police had been called, Hester
took the firearm apart and then wiped it clean, leaving “bullets on the floor
. . . .” Transcript at 138. Hester denied the presence of a firearm in the
residence, but police discovered five .25 caliber bullets—four being found in the
hallway “just outside the door of the office”— a firearm magazine, and an
unloaded .25 caliber firearm located “underneath a reclining-type sofa in the
living room or family room of the home.” Id. at 184, 189. Hester was arrested.
[3] The State charged Hester with pointing a firearm at another person, and a
bench trial was held. On direct examination, Deborah consistently testified
Hester pointed a firearm at her:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1501-CR-28 | September 17, 2015 Page 2 of 9 [State:] [A]nd after this point in time . . . you talked about the . . . handgun. Can you go back to that and . . . tell the court what happened? [Deborah:] After I threw the things at him, he left the room, and he came back and he had a hand gun [sic], and he pointed it at me. *** [State:] And when he pointed the handgun at you, was he standing up? [Deborah:] Yes. *** [State:] Uh, what do you recall seeing of the handgun that you can talk about now in court? [Deborah:] That it was being pointed at me.
Id. at 133, 135, 136. On cross-examination, Hester’s counsel attempted to
impeach Deborah’s credibility by addressing her history of mental illness and
ability to accurately recall the altercation. Specifically, counsel questioned
whether the firearm was pointed directly at her:
[Defense Counsel:] You told the police that, um, [Hester] had a gun and was pointing it at you. When . . . you told the police that he was pointing the gun at you, was it pointed in your direction? [Deborah:] Um, I don’t recall. I just recall the gun pointing into the room. [Defense Counsel:] But you don’t recall if it was pointed at you? [Deborah:] I recall it being pointed into the room.
Id. at 164. However, when questioned on re-direct, Deborah recalled telling
police Hester pointed a firearm at her. Moreover, Deborah appeared conflicted
about testifying against her son:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1501-CR-28 | September 17, 2015 Page 3 of 9 [State:] [D]id you indicate to me, um, that you didn’t want to testify against your son? [Deborah:] Yes, I did. [State:] And is that still how you feel? [Deborah:] Yes, it is. [State:] And you don’t want to see anything happen to your son, is that correct? [Deborah:] That’s the truth. [State:] And when I say “anything happen” I mean . . . through the legal process. [Deborah:] That’s the truth.
Id. at 170-71.
[4] Responding Officer Jon Bell testified that when police arrived, Deborah
explained there had been a heated altercation resulting in Hester pointing a
firearm at her. Upon learning of the firearm, Officer Bell began a search of the
residence. According to Officer Bell, Deborah was so adamant the firearm
remained in the residence, she crawled through a bedroom window to gain
access to Hester’s room, which had been locked. Officer Bell testified that after
discovering the firearm, bullets, and magazine scattered throughout the
residence, he recognized the firearm and bullets were of the same caliber.
[5] The trial court found Hester guilty of pointing a firearm at another person.
Hester was sentenced to 1,095 days, with 180 days executed in the Indiana
Department of Correction and the remainder served through a community
corrections program. Hester now appeals his conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1501-CR-28 | September 17, 2015 Page 4 of 9 Discussion and Decision I. Standard of Review [6] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, a
reviewing court shall consider only the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences supporting the judgment. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.
2007). The court neither reweighs the evidence nor reassesses the credibility of
witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). Instead, the
court should affirm the conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find
the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Drane, 867
N.E.2d at 146-47 (citation omitted).
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence A. Incredibly Dubious Testimony [7] Hester claims Deborah’s testimony was insufficient to support his conviction
because the testimony was inherently contradictory and equivocal. Specifically,
Hester cites his mother’s poor memory, history of mental illness, and
inconsistent statements as to whether the firearm was pointed at her.
[8] The incredible dubiosity rule allows a reviewing court to “impinge upon a [fact
finder’s] responsibility to judge the credibility of the witnesses only when
confronted with inherently improbable testimony.” Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d
749, 755 (Ind. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Therefore, “[a]pplication of this rule is rare and the standard to be applied is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1501-CR-28 | September 17, 2015 Page 5 of 9 whether the testimony is so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no
reasonable person could believe it.” Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind.
2002). In Moore, our supreme court stated the appropriate scope of the
incredible dubiosity rule, which requires: “1) a sole testifying witness; 2)
testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion;
and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence.” 27 N.E.3d at 756. If
any one factor is lacking, application of the incredible dubiosity rule is
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 17 2015, 9:02 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Douglas R. Long Gregory F. Zoeller Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Justin F. Roebel Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Marvin Hester, September 17, 2015 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 48A02-1501-CR-28 v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela Warner Appellee-Plaintiff Sims, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 48C01-1309-FD-1712
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1501-CR-28 | September 17, 2015 Page 1 of 9 Case Summary and Issue [1] Following a bench trial, Marvin Hester was convicted of pointing a firearm at
another person, a Class D felony. He raises two issues for our review, which
we consolidate and restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his
conviction. Concluding the evidence was sufficient to prove Hester’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] In August of 2013, Hester lived with his mother, Deborah Hester, in her
residence in Anderson, Indiana. On August 31, police were called to the
residence following a report of a son pointing a firearm at his mother. When
police arrived, Deborah explained Hester pointed a firearm at her while she was
in the home office. Further, after learning the police had been called, Hester
took the firearm apart and then wiped it clean, leaving “bullets on the floor
. . . .” Transcript at 138. Hester denied the presence of a firearm in the
residence, but police discovered five .25 caliber bullets—four being found in the
hallway “just outside the door of the office”— a firearm magazine, and an
unloaded .25 caliber firearm located “underneath a reclining-type sofa in the
living room or family room of the home.” Id. at 184, 189. Hester was arrested.
[3] The State charged Hester with pointing a firearm at another person, and a
bench trial was held. On direct examination, Deborah consistently testified
Hester pointed a firearm at her:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1501-CR-28 | September 17, 2015 Page 2 of 9 [State:] [A]nd after this point in time . . . you talked about the . . . handgun. Can you go back to that and . . . tell the court what happened? [Deborah:] After I threw the things at him, he left the room, and he came back and he had a hand gun [sic], and he pointed it at me. *** [State:] And when he pointed the handgun at you, was he standing up? [Deborah:] Yes. *** [State:] Uh, what do you recall seeing of the handgun that you can talk about now in court? [Deborah:] That it was being pointed at me.
Id. at 133, 135, 136. On cross-examination, Hester’s counsel attempted to
impeach Deborah’s credibility by addressing her history of mental illness and
ability to accurately recall the altercation. Specifically, counsel questioned
whether the firearm was pointed directly at her:
[Defense Counsel:] You told the police that, um, [Hester] had a gun and was pointing it at you. When . . . you told the police that he was pointing the gun at you, was it pointed in your direction? [Deborah:] Um, I don’t recall. I just recall the gun pointing into the room. [Defense Counsel:] But you don’t recall if it was pointed at you? [Deborah:] I recall it being pointed into the room.
Id. at 164. However, when questioned on re-direct, Deborah recalled telling
police Hester pointed a firearm at her. Moreover, Deborah appeared conflicted
about testifying against her son:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1501-CR-28 | September 17, 2015 Page 3 of 9 [State:] [D]id you indicate to me, um, that you didn’t want to testify against your son? [Deborah:] Yes, I did. [State:] And is that still how you feel? [Deborah:] Yes, it is. [State:] And you don’t want to see anything happen to your son, is that correct? [Deborah:] That’s the truth. [State:] And when I say “anything happen” I mean . . . through the legal process. [Deborah:] That’s the truth.
Id. at 170-71.
[4] Responding Officer Jon Bell testified that when police arrived, Deborah
explained there had been a heated altercation resulting in Hester pointing a
firearm at her. Upon learning of the firearm, Officer Bell began a search of the
residence. According to Officer Bell, Deborah was so adamant the firearm
remained in the residence, she crawled through a bedroom window to gain
access to Hester’s room, which had been locked. Officer Bell testified that after
discovering the firearm, bullets, and magazine scattered throughout the
residence, he recognized the firearm and bullets were of the same caliber.
[5] The trial court found Hester guilty of pointing a firearm at another person.
Hester was sentenced to 1,095 days, with 180 days executed in the Indiana
Department of Correction and the remainder served through a community
corrections program. Hester now appeals his conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1501-CR-28 | September 17, 2015 Page 4 of 9 Discussion and Decision I. Standard of Review [6] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, a
reviewing court shall consider only the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences supporting the judgment. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.
2007). The court neither reweighs the evidence nor reassesses the credibility of
witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). Instead, the
court should affirm the conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find
the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Drane, 867
N.E.2d at 146-47 (citation omitted).
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence A. Incredibly Dubious Testimony [7] Hester claims Deborah’s testimony was insufficient to support his conviction
because the testimony was inherently contradictory and equivocal. Specifically,
Hester cites his mother’s poor memory, history of mental illness, and
inconsistent statements as to whether the firearm was pointed at her.
[8] The incredible dubiosity rule allows a reviewing court to “impinge upon a [fact
finder’s] responsibility to judge the credibility of the witnesses only when
confronted with inherently improbable testimony.” Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d
749, 755 (Ind. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Therefore, “[a]pplication of this rule is rare and the standard to be applied is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1501-CR-28 | September 17, 2015 Page 5 of 9 whether the testimony is so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no
reasonable person could believe it.” Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind.
2002). In Moore, our supreme court stated the appropriate scope of the
incredible dubiosity rule, which requires: “1) a sole testifying witness; 2)
testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion;
and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence.” 27 N.E.3d at 756. If
any one factor is lacking, application of the incredible dubiosity rule is
precluded. Id. at 758.
[9] As noted above, Deborah initially told the police and later testified Hester
pointed a firearm at her. On cross-examination, however, Deborah became
unsure, testifying she only remembered the firearm being pointed into the room
where she sat. Hester claims this testimony is inherently contradictory, but we
disagree. Deborah told the police Hester pointed a firearm at her. She testified
Hester pointed a firearm at her. Deborah never testified the firearm was not
pointed at her; on-cross examination, she simply stated she could not recall. As
the trial court noted in its decision, the statements were merely different
“characterizations as to what happened that were crafted by . . . counsel in the
way questions were posed.” Tr. at 270. Further, a reasonable person could
believe Deborah’s varying characterizations were due to her poor memory,
history of mental illness, and reluctance to see her son suffer any legal
consequences. Ultimately, the trial court deemed Deborah’s testimony
credible, noting she “never relinquished from the fact” she told police Hester
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1501-CR-28 | September 17, 2015 Page 6 of 9 pointed a firearm at her, and, at trial, “never indicated that’s not what
happened.” Id. at 270.
[10] We conclude Deborah’s testimony is not so “inherently improbable that no
reasonable person could believe it.” Love, 761 N.E.2d at 810. Accordingly, it
would be inappropriate for this court to impinge on the trial court’s
responsibility to judge the credibility of a witness. See Moore, 27 N.E.3d at 760.
Deborah’s testimony is neither inherently contradictory nor equivocal. Because
at least one Moore factor is not satisfied, Deborah’s testimony is not incredibly
dubious.
B. Loaded Firearm [11] Hester claims the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the
State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the firearm was loaded. “A
person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person
commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if
the firearm was not loaded.” Ind. Code § 35-47-4-3(b) (2013). Obtaining a
Class D felony conviction does not necessarily require the State to prove the
firearm was loaded. Adkins v. State, 887 N.E.2d 934, 937 (Ind. 2008).
[12] If a defendant is charged with the Class D felony, but seeks to be convicted of
the Class A misdemeanor, “the defendant must place the fact of the gun having
been unloaded at issue if the State’s evidence has not done so.” Id. at 938
(holding the fact that a gun is unloaded is a “mitigating factor” rather than an
affirmative defense). The fact “is at issue if there is some evidence from which
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1501-CR-28 | September 17, 2015 Page 7 of 9 the jury can draw a conclusion that the weapon was unloaded.” Scott v. State,
924 N.E.2d 169, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied, cert. denied, 562 U.S.
1152 (2011). Once at issue, the State must prove the firearm was loaded
beyond a reasonable doubt. Adkins, 887 N.E.2d at 938.
[13] In the present case, it is not necessary to determine whether the fact that the
firearm was loaded was at issue. Hester fails to cite to any part of the record
indicating where the fact comes into question. Nonetheless, assuming the fact
was at issue, and the State was required to prove the firearm was loaded beyond
a reasonable doubt, there is ample evidence in the record to support such a
finding. Deborah testified that Hester pointed a firearm at her while she was in
the home office. After she threatened to call police, Hester took the firearm
apart—leaving “bullets on the floor”—and wiped it clean with a rag. Tr. at
138. Hester told police there was no firearm in the residence, but police
discovered a hidden firearm, bullets, and magazine in, and near, the home
office. The bullets were the same caliber as the firearm. These facts, taken
together with the entirety of the record, would support a finding beyond a
reasonable doubt the firearm was loaded when pointed at Deborah.
[14] Hester’s arguments merely invite this court to reweigh the evidence and reassess
the credibility of witnesses. In accordance with our standard of reviewing
sufficiency claims, we credit the trial court’s findings as to the evidence and
credibility of witnesses. Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient to sustain
Hester’s conviction as a Class D felony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1501-CR-28 | September 17, 2015 Page 8 of 9 Conclusion [15] Application of the incredible dubiosity rule is precluded because Deborah’s
testimony was not inherently contradictory. Additionally, regardless of
whether the firearm being loaded was at issue, the evidence was sufficient to
show the firearm was loaded when Hester pointed it at his mother.
Accordingly, we conclude a reasonable fact-finder could find beyond a
reasonable doubt the elements of pointing a firearm at another person. Hester’s
conviction is affirmed.
[16] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1501-CR-28 | September 17, 2015 Page 9 of 9