ENOCK v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Pierre Enock appeals his conviction for domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor and claims the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In June 2023, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Brian Ramey was dispatched to an address in Marion County in reference to a disturbance between family members. Officer Ramey made contact with Enock, his wife A.A., and A.A.’s aunt outside arguing about a living situation. Officer Ramey explained that the matter was not a police matter. Enock “was very upset.” Transcript Volume II at 47. Officer Ramey drove to another area of the parking lot of the apartment complex. About five to ten minutes later, Officer Ramey was again dispatched to Enock's location. As he drove to the location, Officer Ramey observed Enock “push[ ] his wife towards the ground ․ in a forcible manner,” which “knocked her off her balance,” and she “had to catch herself from falling to the ground.” Id. at 49. Officer Ramey exited his vehicle, approached Enock and A.A., and saw that A.A. “was more upset and more agitated.” Id. at 50. A.A. stated “he beat me up.” Id. at 53.

[3] The State charged Enock with Count I, domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor, and Count II, battery as a Class B misdemeanor. The court held a bench trial. Officer Ramey testified, “[a]s I turned left to go towards them, Mr. Enock pushed his wife towards the ground, like, with his arms away from himself in a forcible manner, and knocked her off her balance, where she had to catch herself from falling to the ground.” Id. at 49. He testified that “[t]he parking lot is well lit” and “[i]t was at the edge of the sidewalk where the parking lot is illuminated with no obstruction.” Id. at 65-66. A.A. testified,¹ “[w]e are living in the same house with my auntie who she [sic] is mentally disturbed. She's the one who called the police.” Id. at 71. A.A. testified, “[s]o she called the police because they were in the house, because she is mentally disturbed, she thinks she doesn't have way to go, that's why she called the police.” Id. She indicated that Enock did not shove or hit her. She testified, “I didn't tell them that he beats me, and he did not beat me.” Id. at 72. She testified, “I don't understand English. So [ ] that time, I had slipped on the floor down, and the time when my husband was trying to lift me up from the ground, that's when the police came. So the police tried to ask me some questions, which I did not understand proper because of the language, so I tried to explain to them, maybe I misspoke.” Id. The court stated, “quite honestly, the Court does not find [A.A.’s] testimony as credible as ․ the officer's.” Id. at 78. The court found Enock guilty on Counts I and II, merged Count II into Count I, sentenced him to 365 days with 361 days suspended to probation, and ordered that he attend and complete a batterer's intervention program.

Discussion

[4] Enock asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his domestic battery conviction. He argues “[t]he actual alleged victim denies the act of battery attributed to [him].” Appellant's Brief at 7. He argues “it is unclear from this record what actually did happen.” Id. at 10.

[5] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the conviction. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess witness credibility or weigh the evidence. Id. We consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Id. We affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The uncorroborated testimony of one witness can be sufficient to sustain a conviction. Ferrell v. State, 565 N.E.2d 1070, 1072-1073 (Ind. 1991).

[6] Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3 provides that “a person who knowingly or intentionally ․ touches a family or household member in a rude, insolent, or angry manner ․ commits domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor.” The State alleged that Enock knowingly touched A.A., a family or household member, in a rude, insolent, or angry manner.

[7] The evidence most favorable to the trial court's ruling is that Enock “pushed his wife [A.A.] towards the ground ․ in a forcible manner,” which “knocked her off her balance,” and she “had to catch herself from falling to the ground.” Transcript Volume II at 49. The court heard the testimony of Officer Ramey regarding his interactions with Enock and A.A. and his observation of the physical altercation, and it heard the testimony of A.A. regarding the reason the police were called and that she had slipped. Officer Ramey and A.A. were thoroughly cross-examined. The trial court as the trier of fact was able to assess their demeanor and consider their testimony. The State presented evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Enock committed domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor.

[8] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Enock's conviction.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In his brief, Enock states, “[t]his trial was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter who was fluent in the Swahili language.” Appellant's Brief at 5.

Brown, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.