Ricky W. Outlaw v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 31, 2017
• Docket: 02A05-1703-CR-545
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be 08/31/2017, 9:52 am

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 C. Allen Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Katherine Cooper Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ricky W. Outlaw, August 31, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 02A05-1703-CR-545 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Wendy W. Davis, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D04-1609-F6-1029

Pyle, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1703-CR-545| August 31, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Statement of the Case [1] Ricky Outlaw appeals his conviction by jury of Class A misdemeanor battery.1

His sole argument is that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Concluding that the evidence is sufficient, we affirm Outlaw’s battery

conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Issue The sole issue for our review is whether there is sufficient evidence to support Outlaw’s battery conviction.

Facts [3] On September 9, 2016, Cameron Caplinger (“Caplinger”) and Chad Buzzard

(“Buzzard”) were working as loss prevention officers at a Sears store located in

a Fort Wayne shopping mall. As they monitored the surveillance cameras,

Caplinger observed Outlaw pick up a shoe box from a shoe display, place the

box under his arm, and walk out of the store without paying for the

merchandise.

[4] Caplinger and Buzzard caught up with Outlaw as he left the store and asked

him to return. Outlaw began to comply and then suddenly turned to run.

1 IND. CODE § 35-42-2-1. Outlaw was also convicted of Level 6 felony theft; however, he does not appeal that conviction.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1703-CR-545| August 31, 2017 Page 2 of 4 When Buzzard grabbed Outlaw, Outlaw punched Buzzard in the back of the

head with his fist, stating “you can’t touch me, get your hands off me.” (Tr.

Vol. 2 at 177). Caplinger saw Outlaw “turn around and strike [Buzzard] in the

head.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 123).

[5] The State charged Outlaw with theft and battery. At trial, Outlaw testified that

when Buzzard grabbed him, he stumbled backwards and unintentionally made

contact with Buzzard. The jury convicted Outlaw as charged, and Outlaw

appeals the battery conviction.

Decision [6] Outlaw argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his battery

conviction. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well

settled. We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences

supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do

not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We will affirm the

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

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is sufficient if an

inference may be reasonably drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. at 147.

[7] In order to convict Outlaw of battery as a Class A misdemeanor, the State had

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally touched

Buzzard in a rude, insolent or angry manner resulting in bodily injury. See I.C.

§ 35-42-2-1. Outlaw acknowledges that he touched Buzzard but disputes that

he knowingly or intentionally did so. He specifically contends that he “lost his

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1703-CR-545| August 31, 2017 Page 3 of 4 balance and accidentally made contact with the loss prevention officer as he

stumbled backwards.” (Outlaw’s Br. 10). According to Outlaw, an “accidental

hitting is consistent with what would be expected. . . . When someone loses

their balance, they generally use their arms to counter balance their momentum

and weight and their arms will flail about.” (Outlaw’s Br. 10-11).

[8] However, our review of the evidence reveals that Buzzard testified that Outlaw

used his fist to punch Buzzard in the back of the head, stating “you can’t touch

me, get your hands off me.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 177). Caplinger also testified that he

saw Outlaw turn around and strike Buzzard in the head. This evidence is

sufficient to support Outlaw’s battery conviction. Outlaw’s argument that he

accidentally hit Buzzard in the head is an invitation for us to reweigh the

evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot and will not

do. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146.

[9] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1703-CR-545| August 31, 2017 Page 4 of 4