Raymond Christian v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 21, 2020
• Docket: 20A-CR-1398
• 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 Dec 21 2020, 10:08 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Valerie K. Boots Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Brian A. Karle Ian T. Mathew Ball Eggleston, P.C. Angela Sanchez Lafayette, Indiana Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Raymond Christian, December 21, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1398 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela Dow Appellee-Plaintiff. Davis, Judge The Honorable H. Patrick Murphy, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G16-1808-CM-27179

Riley, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1398 | December 21, 2020 Page 1 of 6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE [1] Appellant-Defendant, Raymond Christian (Christian), appeals his conviction

for battery resulting in bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code §§ 35-

42-2-1(c)(1); (d)(1).

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE [3] Christian present this court with one issue, which we restate as: Whether the

State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed battery resulting in

bodily injury.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY [4] On or about August 17, 2018, Shayla Beasley (Beasley) was working at a fast-

food restaurant in Marion County when her on-again-off-again romantic

interest, Christian, came in around 9:00 p.m. Christian sought a cellphone that

was in Beasley’s possession, but Beasley did not wish to relinquish it. However,

Christian subsequently left the restaurant with the cellphone.

[5] Later that evening after she left work, Beasley encountered Christian near her

workplace and demanded the return of the cellphone. The two argued, and

Beasley repeatedly reached for the cellphone. Christian retreated from each

reach. Unable to obtain the cellphone, Beasley walked away from Christian,

who grabbed her arm and pulled her back to him, which, according to Beasley

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1398 | December 21, 2020 Page 2 of 6 “hurt.” (Transcript pp. 9-10). Beasley went home, called 911, and reported her

encounter with Christian.

[6] On August 17, 2018, the State filed an Information, charging Christian with

three Class A misdemeanors: domestic battery, battery resulting in bodily

injury, and theft. After the State filed its Information, Beasley contacted the

police several times seeking to have the charges dropped. On July 20, 2020, the

trial court held Christian’s bench trial. Beasley was the only witness for the

State and testified regarding the August 17, 2018, events. On cross-

examination, Beasley acknowledged that she had attempted to have the charges

against Christian dropped but explained that it was not because her report of his

conduct had been false, but because the two had reconciled. Christian testified

on his own behalf and denied ever touching Beasley during the evening in

question.

[7] The trial court found Christian not-guilty of the domestic battery and theft

charges but guilty of battery resulting in bodily injury. The trial court

proceeded directly to sentencing and imposed a 365-day sentence, all suspended

without probation, and ordered Christian to complete twelve anger

management classes.

[8] Christian now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION [9] Christian challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.

Our standard of review of such claims is well-settled: When we review the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1398 | December 21, 2020 Page 3 of 6 sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we consider only the

probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v.

State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is not our role as an appellate court to

assess witness credibility or to weigh the evidence. Id. We will affirm the

conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[10] A defendant commits Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury

when he “knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude,

insolent, or angry manner” that “results in bodily injury to any other person[.]”

I.C. §§ 35-42-2-1(c)(1); (d)(1). “Bodily injury” is defined as “any impairment of

physical condition, including physical pain.” I.C. § 35-31.5-2-29. Therefore, in

order to prove the offense, the State was required to prove that Christian

touched Beasley in a rude, insolent, or angry manner that caused her pain.

[11] Here, Beasley testified that, during an argument, she walked away from

Christian; he grabbed her arm and pulled her back to him; and it caused her

pain. “Evidence of touching, however slight, is sufficient to support a

conviction for battery.” Wolf v. State, 76 N.E.3d 911, 915 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

We conclude that this evidence sustained the trial court’s determination that

Christian committed Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury.

See K.D. v. State, 754 N.E.2d 36, 40-41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (sustaining K.D.’s

adjudication for battery for an act of insolent pulling).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1398 | December 21, 2020 Page 4 of 6 [12] Christian argues that we should apply the incredible dubiosity rule and reverse

his conviction. “Under this rule, a court will impinge on the [fact-finder’s]

responsibility to judge the credibility of the witnesses only when it has

confronted inherently improbable testimony or coerced, equivocal, wholly

uncorroborated testimony of incredible dubiosity.” Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d

749, 755 (Ind. 2015) (quotations omitted). A reviewing court will apply the rule

only where a sole witness presents inherently contradictory testimony that is

equivocal or the result of coercion and there is a complete lack of circumstantial

evidence of the appellant’s guilt. Id.

[13] While we agree with Christian’s observations that Beasley was the sole witness

who testified that he pulled on her arm and that there was no circumstantial

evidence of his guilt, we cannot agree with his contention that “Beasley’s

version of events was contradictory and equivocal.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 8).

Beasley testified that Christian pulled her arm. On cross-examination, when

confronted with the fact that she had attempted several times to have the

charges dropped, Beasley never stated that she did so because her report was

false, nor did she recant her statements to police. Beasley also denied ever

reporting that Christian’s act of pulling her arm did not hurt. Because Beasley’s

testimony was not “inherently improbable,” “inherently contradictory,” or

“equivocal,” we sustain Christian’s conviction. Moore, 27 N.E.3d at 755.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1398 | December 21, 2020 Page 5 of 6 CONCLUSION [14] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the State proved beyond a reasonable

doubt that Christian committed the offense of Class A misdemeanor battery

resulting in bodily injury.

[15] Affirmed.

[16] Najam, J. and Crone, J. concur

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1398 | December 21, 2020 Page 6 of 6