WOODEN v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Lavantay Wooden (“Wooden”) appeals, following a bench trial, his conviction for Class B misdemeanor battery.¹ Wooden 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 Wooden's battery conviction.

Facts

[3] In May 2024, Wooden and William Getz (“Getz”) were both staying at a homeless shelter (“the shelter”) in Marion County. On the evening of May 4, 2024, Wooden asked multiple guests at the homeless shelter if they had taken some of his belongings. Wooden asked Getz the same question, and Getz denied taking any of Wooden's belongings. Wooden was “agitated” and began following Getz. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 46). Getz told Wooden to leave him alone.

[4] Soon after, Wooden became more agitated and began yelling, and Wooden and Getz walked outside the homeless shelter. Getz yelled at Wooden to “stop bullying people[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 46). Wooden, who was using crutches, set his crutches down and approached Getz. Wooden then grabbed Getz, placed him “in a chokehold,” and “set [him] down kind of hard” onto the sidewalk. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 46). Wooden “did not let go [of Getz] for at least three seconds to a minute.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 46). While in the chokehold, Getz “could not breathe at all.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 46).

[5] Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Amanda Tatomirovich (“Officer Tatomirovich”) arrived on the scene to respond to a reported disturbance. Officer Tatomirovich spoke with Getz, who was “very disheveled,” “very distraught[,]” and “very upset[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 30). Getz told Officer Tatomirovich that he had “just been assaulted” by a man “on crutches” wearing “an all-green outfit[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 30). Getz told Officer Tatomirovich that he had neck pain because he had been “grabbed in a chokehold fashion and slammed to the ground.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 31).

[6] Officer Tatomirovich spoke with Wooden, who had been wearing an all-green outfit and had crutches. Officer Tatomirovich also viewed the homeless shelter's security footage of Wooden and Getz's altercation. Afterward, Officer Tatomirovich arrested Wooden.

[7] The State charged Wooden with Class B misdemeanor battery. In July 2024, the trial court held a bench trial. Officer Tatomirovich testified that Wooden had been wearing an all-green outfit and had been using crutches. Officer Tatomirovich also testified that she had seen the security footage of the altercation and had recorded the footage using her body camera. During Officer Tatomirovich's testimony, the State moved to admit her body camera footage as State's Exhibit 1. Wooden did not object to its admission, and the trial court admitted State's Exhibit 1.

[8] Getz testified that Wooden had grabbed him, placed him in a chokehold, and “set [him] down kind of hard” onto the sidewalk. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 46). Getz further testified that when Wooden had Getz in a chokehold, Wooden “did not let go for at least three seconds to a minute.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 46). Getz also identified Wooden at the bench trial. During Getz's testimony, the State moved to admit a zoomed-in version of Officer Tatomirovich's body camera footage as State's Exhibit 2. Wooden did not object to its admission, and the trial court admitted State's Exhibit 2.

[9] At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found Wooden guilty of Class B misdemeanor battery. The trial court noted that it had found Getz's testimony to be credible. The trial court sentenced Wooden to 180 days, with 124 days suspended and credit for time served. The trial court also ordered Wooden to have no contact with Getz and ordered Wooden to stay away from the homeless shelter.

[10] Wooden now appeals.

Decision

[11] Wooden argues that there was insufficient evidence supporting his Class B misdemeanor battery conviction. “Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims trigger a deferential standard of review in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the jury.” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (cleaned up). “A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (cleaned up). “In conducting that review, we consider only the evidence that supports the jury's determination, not evidence that might undermine it.” Id.

[12] Indiana Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1) provides that “a person who knowingly or intentionally ․ touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner ․ commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor.” “A conviction can be sustained on only the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even when that witness is the victim.” Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012).

[13] The evidence presented during the bench trial is sufficient to support Wooden's conviction. The evidence presented reveals that Wooden had been agitated and had yelled at Getz. Getz identified Wooden at trial and testified that Wooden had grabbed him, placed him in a chokehold, and set him down on the sidewalk. Getz also testified that Wooden, after putting Getz in a chokehold, did not let go for at least three seconds to a minute. Officer Tatomirovich testified that she had spoken with Getz when she had arrived on the scene and that he had told her that Wooden had placed him in a chokehold. The evidence presented during the bench trial reveals that Wooden touched Getz in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Wooden's 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 Hancz-Barron, 235 N.E.3d at 1244.

[14] Wooden suggests that the evidence was insufficient because there were staff and guests at the shelter on the night of the offense, but “not one person came to testify at trial.” (Wooden's Br. 9). However, Getz, who was the victim of the battery, testified at trial, and his testimony alone is enough to sustain Wooden's conviction. See Bailey, 979 N.E.2d at 135. 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 Wooden guilty of Class B misdemeanor battery. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[15] Affirmed.²

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.

2.   Wooden also argues that the admitted videos do “not show any type of touching by [Wooden]” or “show a choke hold[.]” (Wooden's Br. 11). However, the trial court specifically stated that it gave little weight to the videos and had relied on Getz's testimony, which it had found to be credible. Getz's uncorroborated testimony is sufficient to sustain the conviction. See Bailey, 979 N.E.2d at 135.Wooden also attempted to challenge the admission of State's Exhibit 1 and 2 under the silent witness theory but conceded that he was “barred from raising this issue” because Wooden did not object to State's Exhibit 1 and 2's admission at trial.

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.