Shontell Ludy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 14, 2017
• Docket: 49A02-1706-CR-1258
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 14 2017, 10:29 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals 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 of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Shontell Ludy, November 14, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1706-CR-1258 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy M. Jones, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff . Trial Court Cause No. 49G08-1508-CM-30426

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

[1] Shontell Ludy appeals her conviction for battery, arguing that the State failed to

present sufficient evidence to rebut her claim of self-defense beyond a

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-CR-1258 | November 14, 2017 Page 1 of 2 reasonable doubt. Ludy was a customer at a laundromat in Indianapolis, and

she tased an employee during a dispute over a malfunctioning machine. At a

bench trial, she testified that the employee pushed her and that she tased him in

self-defense. The employee and another customer told a different story,

testifying that the employee did not push Ludy and that the tasing was an

unprovoked attack. The trial court found Ludy guilty as charged, specifically

concluding that the State’s witnesses were more credible than Ludy. Tr. pp. 89-

92. On appeal, Ludy repeats her claim that the laundromat employee pushed

her before she tased him. This is merely a request for us to decide who is more

believable, which is the trier of fact’s role, not ours. Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d

878, 882 (Ind. 2017) (“When reviewing a challenge to sufficiency of the

evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility[.]”).

We therefore affirm Ludy’s conviction.

[2] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-CR-1258 | November 14, 2017 Page 2 of 2