Joshua A. Gambles, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Joshua A. Gambles (“Gambles”) appeals, following a bench trial, his conviction for Level 6 felony domestic battery.¹ Gambles argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Concluding that there was sufficient evidence, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there was sufficient evidence supporting Gambles’ conviction.

Facts

[3] Gambles and R.G. (“R.G.”) were married for thirteen years and have three children (“the children”). In 2024, the children were eleven years old, seven years old, and two years old. The two older children attended school during the day, but the youngest child, two-year-old I.G. (“I.G.”), attended a daycare where R.G. worked. Gambles, R.G., and the children lived together. Gambles and R.G. both filed for divorce in 2023.

[4] On November 5, 2023, R.G. and the children “left the home” for “safety” reasons. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 62). R.G. and the children began living with her mother (“R.G.’s mother”). R.G. removed the two older children from their school and re-enrolled them in a different school. R.G. did not tell Gambles that she had enrolled the two older children at a different school.

[5] A week later, on November 14, 2023, around 9:00 a.m., Gambles went to the two older children's former school because he “missed them” and “wanted to see them.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 153). Gambles discovered that his two older children no longer attended the school. Gambles then drove to R.G.’s mother's house because “[t]hat [wa]s where [the children] had been staying[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 154). Gambles rang R.G.’s mother's doorbell. R.G.’s mother looked out of her door's “peephole” and saw that Gambles was “pacing on [her] porch.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 104, 105). R.G.’s mother saw that Gambles seemed very “angry and upset.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 105). Gambles asked R.G.’s mother where the children were, and R.G.’s mother told him that the children were at school. When Gambles asked R.G.’s mother what school, R.G.’s mother told him to call R.G. R.G.’s mother told Gambles that she did not want to “get in the middle of things” and directed Gambles to leave her property. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 105).

[6] Gambles then drove to the daycare where R.G. worked and where I.G. attended. When Gambles knocked on the door of the daycare, a teacher let him inside the building. Gambles saw R.G. standing at the top of the stairs near the entrance of the daycare. Gambles went up the stairs directly towards R.G. Gambles asked R.G. to talk with him outside. R.G. responded that she “didn't feel comfortable with that” and asked Gambles to call her later. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 69). R.G. told Gambles that she was at work and asked Gambles “not to do this here.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 69). Gambles “storm[ed] off” down one of the daycare's upstairs hallways. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 69). The daycare director (“the daycare director”) saw Gambles and R.G. talk. The daycare director noticed that Gambles looked “[a]ngry” and “aggressive[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 121).

[7] R.G. went to a classroom in the downstairs hallway of the daycare. There, R.G. picked up I.G. R.G. also called 911. When R.G. came out of the classroom, she saw Gambles coming down the stairs that led to the downstairs hallway. R.G. turned and entered a different classroom in the downstairs hallway, but she noticed that Gambles was “[v]ery close to [her].” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 72). Gambles followed R.G. into the classroom and “cornered” her. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 72). R.G., who was holding I.G. on her hip, told Gambles, “please don't do this[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 72). Gambles grabbed one of R.G.’s arms with one of his hands and grabbed ahold of I.G. with his other hand. R.G. released I.G. because she was not going to “play tug of war with [I.G.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 73). Once Gambles had I.G., he “pushed [R.G.] a little bit” before stepping back with his free hand extended to stop R.G. from getting closer. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 73). The daycare director entered the classroom around this time and saw that Gambles had his arm extended in a “stiff-arm manner” and was “holding R.G. off of” I.G. and himself. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 124). I.G. was also screaming and crying. Gambles returned I.G. to R.G., told R.G. that she would be hearing from his lawyer, and left the daycare.

[8] The State charged Gambles with Level 6 felony domestic battery. In April 2024, the trial court held a bench trial. R.G. testified at the bench trial. R.G. testified that when Gambles came to the daycare, he looked angry. R.G. also testified that she was scared when Gambles had come to the daycare. R.G. further testified that Gambles had pushed her away after he had gotten ahold of I.G. and that the push was not gentle. When the State asked R.G. if it had hurt when Gambles had grabbed her, she responded, “[y]es.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 87). The daycare director testified that she had not seen Gambles push R.G., but when she had entered the classroom, she saw that Gambles’ “arm was on [R.G.] keeping her away from taking [I.G.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 124).

[9] Gambles testified in his own defense. Gambles testified that he had not grabbed R.G.’s arm and had not pushed R.G. Gambles also testified that he had extended his arm to prevent R.G. from taking I.G. from him. Gambles testified that any contact that he had made with R.G. when he had extended his arm had been “incidental.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 181). Gambles also testified that he had not told R.G. that she would hear from his lawyer or that anything bad was going to happen to her. Gambles testified that he had been “frustrated and concerned” but had not been “angry.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 168).

[10] At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found Gambles guilty of Level 6 felony domestic battery. At his sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Gambles to 365 days, fully suspended to probation.

[11] Gambles now appeals.

Decision

[12] Gambles argues that there was insufficient evidence supporting his Level 6 felony domestic battery conviction. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well settled. We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 146-47. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may be reasonably drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. at 147.

[13] Indiana Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a) 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 statute further provides that the offense is a Level 6 felony if “[t]he person who committed the offense is at least eighteen (18) years of age and committed the offense against a family or household member in the physical presence of a child less than sixteen (16) years of age, knowing that the child was present and might be able to see or hear the offense.” I.C. 35-42-2-1.3(b)(2).

[14] Gambles specifically argues that “the record does not support that Gambles was angry when he touched R.G.” (Gambles’ Br. 11). We disagree.

[15] Our review of the record reveals that Gambles and R.G. were in the process of dissolving their marriage and that R.G. and the children had left their home. Gambles then went to the daycare where R.G. worked after discovering that his children had been enrolled in a different school. R.G. was scared when she saw Gambles arrive. R.G. found I.G. in a classroom, picked her up, and exited the classroom. When R.G. saw Gambles coming down the stairs into the downstairs hallway where she was standing, she fled into another classroom. Gambles pursued R.G. into the classroom, grabbed R.G.’s arm with one hand and grabbed I.G. with his other hand. After Gambles had gotten ahold of I.G., he pushed R.G. away and kept her at arms length with his extended arm. R.G. and the daycare director both testified that Gambles appeared angry. The evidence presented during the bench trial reveals that Gambles touched R.G. in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Gambles’ argument challenging the sufficiency of this evidence is merely an invitation to reweigh the evidence and reassess the credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146.

[16] Based on our review of the evidence presented at the bench trial, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found Gambles guilty of Level 6 felony domestic battery. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3.

Pyle, Judge.

Judges Weissmann and Felix concur. Weissmann, J., and Felix, J., concur.