Nathan Arnold v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 16, 2017
• Docket: 49A02-1706-CR-1257
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Nov 16 2017, 6:49 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the CLERK Indiana Supreme Court purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Court of Appeals and Tax Court collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Elizabeth A. Houdek Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana George P. Sherman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Nathan Arnold, November 16, 2017

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1706-CR-1257

v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Linda E. Brown, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 49G10-1702-CM-5763

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-CR-1257 | November 16, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Appellant-Defendant Nathan Arnold was being moved in a police transport

wagon when he began kicking a barrier, damaging it. The State charged

Arnold with Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and the trial court found

him guilty as charged. Arnold contends that the State produced insufficient

evidence to sustain his criminal mischief conviction. Because we disagree, we

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On February 11, 2017, Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy Terrence Green was

transporting Arnold from Eskenazi Hospital to the arrestee processing center in

Indianapolis when Deputy Green heard a loud noise. Deputy Green turned

around and saw Arnold kicking a barricade inside the transport wagon that

keeps inmates separated, damaging it. On February 12, 2017, the State charged

Arnold with Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, and, following a bench

trial held on May 16, 2017, the trial court found him guilty as charged and

sentenced him to 180 days of incarceration with 140 suspended to probation.

Discussion and Decision [3] Arnold contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to sustain his

criminal mischief conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence

supporting a conviction, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the

credibility of witnesses. Staton v. State, 853 N.E.2d 470, 474 (Ind. 2006). We

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-CR-1257 | November 16, 2017 Page 2 of 4 must look to the evidence most favorable to the conviction together with all

reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. Id. We will affirm a

conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each

element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[4] In order to convict Arnold of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, the State

was required to establish that he “recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally

damage[d] or deface[d] property of another person without the other person’s

consent[.]” Arnold argues only that the State failed to present sufficient

evidence to sustain a finding that he damaged the transport wagon. Deputy

Green, when asked if Arnold damaged the transport wagon, answered, “Yes.”

Tr. Vol. II p. 5. In addition, Deputy Green testified that he saw Arnold kicking

the barrier during transport. Arnold argues that Deputy Green’s testimony

should have been more specific.1 Arnold, however, does not draw our attention

to any authority that requires more specificity, and we are aware of none. As

such, we conclude that this testimony is sufficient to support a finding that

Arnold satisfied the damage element of criminal mischief. Arnold also notes

that Deputy Green did not testify that he inspected the transport wagon before

transporting Arnold, which he argues should have been necessary to establish

that the damage was not caused by another person. Again, we are aware of no

1 While ultimately not necessary to our review on appeal, certainly, additional questions concerning a description of the damage would have been relevant and helpful in this case.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-CR-1257 | November 16, 2017 Page 3 of 4 authority that would require such evidence. Deputy Green’s testimony is

sufficient to support a reasonable inference that he witnessed Arnold causing

visible damage to the transport wagon. Arnold’s arguments are nothing more

than invitations to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Staton, 853

N.E.2d at 474.

[5] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-CR-1257 | November 16, 2017 Page 4 of 4