OWENS v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Trenton David Owens was convicted of several offenses related to breaking into his girlfriend's apartment and battering her. He now appeals, arguing the trial court erred in admitting some evidence. Finding any error in the admission of the evidence to be harmless, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In September 2021, Owens and K.P. had been dating on and off since 2003 and had three young children together. K.P. and the children lived in an apartment in Richmond. On September 14, K.P. called the police and asked them to come to her apartment and issue a trespass notice to Owens because she was “afraid to go home.” Tr. Vol. III p. 125. An officer went to K.P.’s apartment and encountered Owens outside. The officer told Owens that he was trespassed from the property and handed him the notice. Owens, however, refused to sign or take it.

[3] One week later, shortly after midnight on September 21, Richmond Police Department Officer Logan Moistner was on patrol when he saw a blue Ford Flex driving faster than the speed limit. He followed the car to investigate. The car eventually parked near K.P.’s apartment, and the driver, whom Officer Moistner recognized as Owens from prior encounters, exited the car and approached the exterior door to K.P.’s apartment. Officer Moistner saw Owens enter but then lost sight of him. Around four minutes later, Officer Moistner observed Owens exit the exterior door and speed off in his Ford Flex. Officer Moistner tried to catch up to Owens but couldn't find him. Meanwhile, Officer Moistner was dispatched to an unrelated call.

[4] Also around midnight, K.P.’s downstairs neighbor, Ricky Richardson, was awakened by “arguing and yelling and stomping around” upstairs. Tr. Vol. II p. 220. He then heard someone “beating” on his door. Id. When Richardson opened the door, K.P. was standing there “bloody” and told him that “he beat me up” and “took my phone.” Id. K.P. used Richardson's wife's phone to call 911.

[5] During the 911 call, K.P. was “hysterical” and crying. Id. at 201; Ex. 28. She told the dispatcher that Owens “busted down [her] door,” “busted [her] whole face up,” and “stole [her] phone.” Ex. 28.

[6] Richmond Police Department officers responded to K.P.’s apartment. Officer Moistner was summoned there after finishing the other call. Upon entering, Officer Moistner observed that K.P.’s front-door frame was damaged, the door handle was broken off, and the “locking mechanism for the door” was on the floor. Tr. Vol. III p. 186. K.P. told Officer Moistner that her “ex[-]boyfriend” Owens “came over, kicked in the front door, battered and attacked her in front of her children, and then stole her phone and left.” Id. at 181. Officer Moistner observed several injuries to K.P.’s neck and face. K.P. explained that Owens threw her to the ground, “strangled” her, and “punched” her in the face “multiple times.” Id. at 183, 184. Officer Moistner also observed blood droplets on the floor. Officer Moistner took photos of K.P.’s injuries and apartment.

[7] Meanwhile, K.P., who was “pretty upset and crying,” called her mother, C.C., and asked her to come over. Id. at 95. When C.C. arrived, the front door was damaged and “off the hinges.” Id. at 96. The police were there, and K.P. was “still upset and crying.” Id. at 95. C.C. observed that K.P. had “quite a few red marks” on her face, neck, head, chest, and hand. Id. at 96. K.P. told C.C. that Owens caused her injuries and pointed to her blood on the floor.

[8] An EMT responded to the scene and assessed K.P., who had blood on her face. K.P. told the EMT that her ex-boyfriend hit her multiple times in the face.

[9] Owens was arrested and charged with Level 3 felony burglary, Level 6 felony domestic battery, Level 6 felony strangulation, Level 6 felony theft, and Class A misdemeanor interference with the reporting of a crime. At the jury trial, K.P. testified that she didn't remember calling 911 on September 21, she had never seen or talked to Officer Moistner before, “nobody battered [her]” that day, the marks on her in the photographs were from a skin condition or her dog, the blood on the floor was from when she killed a rat, she had broken her front door before September 21, and she—not Owens—was “the abuser” and “the aggressor” in their relationship. Id. at 55, 167. K.P. also testified that “the Monday after the incident,” she went to the prosecutor's office and asked to have the charges dismissed. Id. at 46. When the State pointed out that the Wayne County Request for Dismissal form (Exhibit 38) was dated June 30, 2022, which was nine months after the incident, K.P. responded, “You guys probably threw it away.” Id.

[10] Owens testified in his own defense that he drove his Ford Flex to K.P.’s apartment around 10:30 p.m. that night but never entered. He said that as he approached K.P.’s front door, he could hear her screaming so he “turned around and walked right back to [his] car and left.” Id. at 244. During cross-examination, the State asked Owens if he had been accused of battering K.P. in April 2018. Defense counsel objected on Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) grounds. The State responded that it wanted to admit this testimony as well as a related exhibit ¹ not to show propensity but rather (1) to show that contrary to K.P.’s testimony, she had actually requested dismissal of the April 2018 case and not this case and (2) to rebut K.P.’s and Owens's testimony that K.P.—not Owens—was the abuser in their relationship. The trial court admitted the exhibit for this limited purpose and gave the jury a limiting instruction agreed to by both the State and defense counsel:

You are admonished that that exhibit was admitted to show that there had been a previous request for dismissal in another case, not in this case. And to show that there's been a history of conflict between Mr. Owens and [K.P.] and for no other purpose. Those are the two purposes that that Exhibit was admitted.

Tr. Vol. IV p. 19. Owens then testified that he was charged in 2018 for battering K.P., but K.P. lied about it and requested a dismissal, just like she had done in this case.

[11] The jury found Owens guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of nine years.

[12] Owens now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Owens raises one issue on appeal. That is, he contends the trial court erred in “allowing the State to enter into evidence a prior alleged act of domestic violence by the defendant against the same victim approximately more than three (3) years prior to the charged offense” in violation of Evidence Rule 404(b). Appellant's Br. p. 10. The State responds that even if the trial court erred in admitting this evidence, the error was harmless. Owens did not address how the error harmed him in his opening brief or file a reply brief to respond to the State's harmless-error argument.

[14] “An error is harmless ‘where its probable impact, in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties.’ ” Hayko v. State, 211 N.E.3d 483, 492 (Ind. 2023) (quoting Ind. Appellate Rule 66(A)), reh'g denied, cert. denied. Under the “probable impact” test, the party seeking relief bears the burden of demonstrating how, in light of all the evidence, the error's probable impact undermines confidence in the outcome of the proceeding below. Id. Error in the admission of evidence is harmless if we are satisfied the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt such that there is little likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the verdict. Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1238 (Ind. 2012), reh'g denied.

[15] There is substantial evidence of guilt beyond the evidence that Owens was charged with battering K.P. in 2018. This other evidence, which Owens doesn't dispute on appeal, includes: (1) K.P.’s frantic 911 call detailing how Owens broke into her apartment and assaulted her before stealing her phone, (2) K.P.’s description of the events to Officer Moistner, her mother, and an EMT, (3) the photographs of K.P.’s broken front door, her injuries, and the blood on the floor, and (4) Officer Moistner's testimony that he saw Owens at K.P.’s apartment around the time of the offenses. Owens has failed to show that any error harmed him. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   At trial, the parties identified the exhibit as Exhibit 47, see Tr. Vol. IV pp. 17-18; however, Exhibit 47 is not contained in the exhibit volume, see Ex. Vol. pp. 2-3. Although we don't know what the exhibit provides, it appears from defense counsel's redirect examination of Owens that it at least provides the cause number of the 2018 case that was dismissed. See Tr. Vol. IV p. 69.

Vaidik, Judge.

Weissmann, J., and Foley, J., concur.