C.T. Appellant-Defendant v. STATE OF INDIANA (2006)

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Case Summary

C.T. appeals her conviction for battery resulting in bodily injury, a class A misdemeanor. We affirm.

Issue

We restate the issue as whether the State presented sufficient evidence that C.T. committed battery upon Hillary Joslin.

Facts and Procedural History

The facts most favorable to the verdict indicate that on December 1, 2004, C.T. was at the Delaware Circuit Court 4 for a proceedings supplemental hearing. The purpose of the hearing was to determine C.T.’s ability to pay a judgment that Joslin had previously received against her. Joslin was at the hearing, along with her mother, Patricia Nicholson. C.T., Joslin, and Nicholson discussed the case with Laura Alvarado, a staff member of Delaware Circuit Court 4. C.T. stated that her only income was from social security disability benefits. However, Joslin and Nicholson indicated that they believed she was lying. Joslin asked if a warrant would be issued if C.T. did not pay the judgment, and Alvarado replied that that was not a possibility. In the end, it appeared that Joslin would be unable to recover the money that C.T. owed her.

Joslin, Nicholson, and C.T. exited the courtroom at about the same time and bumped into each other. C.T. called Nicholson a “bitch” and a “whore.” Joslin and her mother turned to leave at this point, and then C.T. hit Joslin in the neck from behind with her cane. Neither Joslin nor Nicholson saw C.T. hit Joslin, but they saw her lowering her cane. No one else was in the hallway at the time. Joslin and Nicholson went directly to the police and made a report. Jayne Poland, the receptionist, observed a long, narrow red mark on Joslin's neck.

The trial was held on July 29, 2005. C.T. testified that Joslin hit her in the breast, and that she had raised her cane to defend herself. C.T. also made a statement to the police and asked for an ambulance to take her to the hospital. C.T. submitted the medical records from her examination and photographs of a bruise on her breast. The jury found C.T. guilty of battery resulting in bodily injury, a class A misdemeanor.

Discussion and Decision

C.T. asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that she committed battery upon Joslin.

Upon a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, a reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, and respects “the jury's exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence.” ․ [A]ppellate courts must affirm “if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Mc Henry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005) (footnotes omitted).

On review, this Court does not have to find that circumstantial evidence is adequate to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence but only that an inference may reasonably be drawn therefrom which supports the finding of the jury. The triers of fact may draw reasonable inferences from facts established either by direct or circumstantial evidence, and a guilty verdict may be based solely upon circumstantial evidence.

Thompson v. State, 441 N.E.2d 192, 193-94 (Ind. 1982) (citations omitted).

C.T. argues that the circumstantial evidence presented by the State does not support the inferences drawn by the jury. First, she argues that no one actually saw her strike Joslin. However, Joslin and Nicholson both testified to seeing C.T. lowering her cane after Joslin was struck. Furthermore, the three of them were the only people in the hallway at the time of the incident. In addition, all the witnesses who saw the mark on Joslin's neck testified that it was a long, narrow red mark, consistent with what one would expect to see if she had been hit by a cane. Therefore, it was reasonable for the jury to infer that C.T. had in fact struck Joslin.

C.T. also argues that Joslin had a motive to file a report against her. Joslin was upset that she was not going to be able to collect from C.T. Their meeting in the courtroom had been tense. However, this same conflict provides a motive for C.T. to strike Joslin. She was upset about being called a liar and testified that Nicholson had said she was going to come after her. Alvarado testified that both parties were angry.

Finally, C.T. argues that the medical evidence supports her version of the story, therefore making it improper for the jury to conclude that Joslin's testimony was correct. C.T. points to the fact that she received medical treatment, but that Joslin never received any treatment for her alleged injury. However, the State did not need to show that Joslin received medical treatment, only that she suffered pain. See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1 (battery statute); Ind. Code § 35-41-1-4 (defining “bodily injury” as any impairment of physical condition, including physical pain). Even if Joslin had indeed struck C.T., that fact would not preclude the jury from concluding that C.T. had also struck Joslin. Furthermore, the only thing connecting Joslin to the bruise on C.T.’s breast was C.T.’s own testimony, and it was within the province of the jury to decide whether it should credit this testimony. C.T.’s argument is an invitation to reweigh the evidence which we will not indulge. The conclusion reached by the jury was neither illogical nor unreasonable. Therefore, we affirm C.T.’s conviction.

Affirmed.

CRONE, Judge

KIRSCH, C.J., and BAILEY, J., concur.