Shawn Phillips v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 29, 2018
• Docket: 49A02-1709-CR-2102
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Mar 29 2018, 10:59 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 Barbara J. Simmons Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Shawn Phillips, March 29, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1709-CR-2102 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Christina Appellee-Plaintiff Klineman, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G17-1707-CM-27920

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2102 | March 29, 2018 Page 1 of 4 [1] Shawn Phillips challenges his conviction for Class A misdemeanor domestic

battery by bodily waste. He claims that the State presented insufficient

evidence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On July 29, 2017, R.A. was living with and in a romantic relationship with

Phillips. As R.A. prepared to go to a baseball game with others, Phillips

informed R.A. that her mother sent a text message indicating that she was no

longer going to the game. Phillips refused to let R.A. read the message. R.A.

“brushed it off and continued getting ready.” Transcript at 8.

[4] When Phillips then went outside, R.A. looked into the parking lot of the

apartment complex from her second-floor balcony. She observed Phillips try to

enter her locked car and then go to one of the tires and “start[] letting air out of

it” to prevent her from leaving. Id. at 10. R.A. went back inside the apartment

to finish getting ready and figure out how to leave. Phillips came into the

bathroom and started urinating in the toilet less than three feet from her. He

then turned toward R.A., looked directly at her, and urinated on her right side

from her armpit down the whole side of her body for several seconds. Phillips

then said, “You are no longer leaving. Now get in the shower.” Id. at 11.

Flustered, R.A. told Phillips he was disgusting and then grabbed dry clothes

and went outside. R.A.’s mother was waiting in the parking lot and called the

police.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2102 | March 29, 2018 Page 2 of 4 [5] Officer Corey Schnick with IMPD responded to the scene and spoke with R.A.,

who excitedly said, “He peed on me.” Id. at 15. R.A. was wearing a dark shirt,

and Officer Schnick observed, as R.A. pulled the shirt away from her body, that

“the fabric from her shirt, on her right side, appeared to be heavier than the rest

of her shirt.” Id. at 17. He explained at trial that he could not see a difference

in the color of the shirt but could tell it was wet “by the look of the, I guess how

it was shaking in the breeze.” Id. Phillips was arrested and charged the

following day with domestic battery by bodily waste.

[6] On August 23, 2017, a bench trial was held. Phillips testified briefly in his own

defense, denying that he urinated on R.A. The trial court considered the

conflicting evidence and determined that Phillips was guilty as charged.

Discussion & Decision

[7] Phillips contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he urinated

on R.A. Specifically, he notes his denial and argues that the State presented no

photographs of the shirt or the bathroom and no evidence regarding whether

there was a urine odor on the shirt or urine on the bathroom floor. Phillips

asserts: “This is the classic case of a vindictive girlfriend making a false

accusation – a she said-he said matter.” Appellant’s Brief at 8.

[8] When we consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither

reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Suggs v. State,

51 N.E.3d 1190, 1193 (Ind. 2016). Instead, we consider only the evidence and

reasonable inferences supporting the conviction. Id. We will affirm if there is

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2102 | March 29, 2018 Page 3 of 4 probative evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[9] We reject Phillips blatant request for us to reweigh the evidence and to judge

R.A.’s credibility. Her testimony alone was sufficient to support the conviction.

See Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012) (“A conviction can be

sustained on only the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even when

that witness is the victim.”).

[10] Judgment affirmed.

Najam, J. and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2102 | March 29, 2018 Page 4 of 4