Mon Htaw v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 8, 2018
• Docket: 49A02-1712-CR-2902
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 08 2018, 6:05 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 Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General

Evan Matthew Comer Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Mon Htaw, June 8, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1712-CR-2902 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Peggy R. Hart, Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G10-1611-CM-44099

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1712-CR-2902 | June 8, 2018 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Mon Htaw appeals her conviction for class A misdemeanor battery following a

bench trial. Htaw argues that there was insufficient evidence to support her

conviction. Finding that the evidence was sufficient, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] The evidence most favorable to the judgment shows that on November 12,

2016, Mon Htaw rushed home from work when her sister Mon Sorn called her

after an altercation with their roommate, Ma Suu. Followed by Sorn, Htaw

stormed into Suu’s room, and Suu recorded a video using her phone when she

noticed Htaw’s angry demeanor. Htaw yelled at Suu, and Htaw and Sorn

punched Suu several times, whereby Suu sustained multiple facial injuries.

[3] After hearing the commotion emanating from Suu’s bedroom, Nick Nix and

Travis Cress entered the bedroom where Htaw, Sorn, and Suu were grappling.

Cress and others eventually put an end to the fight by separating the women.

The police were then called, and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer

Brandon Smith responded. Htaw admitted to Officer Smith that she had hit

Suu.

[4] The State charged Htaw with battery resulting in bodily injury, a class A

misdemeanor. The trial court found her guilty and sentenced her to 365 days.

This appeal ensued.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1712-CR-2902 | June 8, 2018 Page 2 of 4 Discussion and Decision [5] Htaw challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. In

reviewing an insufficient evidence claim, we do not reweigh the evidence or

judge the credibility of witnesses. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind.

2009). Rather, we consider only the evidence that supports the judgment and

the reasonable inferences arising therefrom. Id. “We will affirm if there is

substantial evidence of probative value such that a reasonable trier of fact could

have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

[6] A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude,

insolent, or angry manner commits battery, a class A misdemeanor if it results

in bodily injury to any other person. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), -(d)(1). Htaw

concedes that a battery occurred, but argues that the evidence presented at trial

was speculative insomuch that it does not show she was responsible for the

battery. She contends that the names of some of the parties and the testimony

could be confusing. Htaw also argues that the video Suu had recorded does not

actually show any physical contact between the two parties. However, Htaw’s

argument ignores the longstanding principle that “it is precisely within the

domain of the trier of fact to sift through conflicting accounts of events.” In re

J.L.T., 712 N.E.2d 7, 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.

[7] Officer Smith testified that Htaw admitted to battering Suu. Suu testified that

Htaw battered her, and the video that Suu recorded in anticipation of the

battery shows Htaw aggressively approaching her as though ready to fight.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1712-CR-2902 | June 8, 2018 Page 3 of 4 Based on this evidence, a reasonable factfinder could infer that Htaw battered

Suu. Htaw’s contentions merely invite this Court to reweigh the evidence and

judge the credibility of the witnesses’ testimony. We must decline this

invitation. Therefore, we affirm Htaw’s conviction.

[8] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1712-CR-2902 | June 8, 2018 Page 4 of 4