COLLIER v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] A jury found Phillip Maurice Collier guilty of Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury,¹ and he admitted to being a habitual offender. On appeal, Collier argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his battery conviction. We disagree and therefore affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The facts most favorable to the jury's verdict are that Collier worked as an automotive detailer for a car dealership in Fishers. Matthew Carver and Candis Markus were salespersons at the dealership. On the afternoon of July 31, 2023, Carver and Markus delivered a vehicle to a customer's home and returned to the dealership in Carver's vehicle. Carver's vehicle was dirty, and he got permission from his manager, Ty Lowery, to “pull into the detail department to spray” it off. Tr. Vol. 2 at 150. Carver drove into one of the detailing bays, with Markus in the front passenger seat. Collier was at a workstation with a toolbox approximately three feet “in front of [Carver's] hood.” Id. at 154.

[3] Carver got out of his vehicle and went to get a bottle of tire shine from “the other side of the detail department.” Id. at 152. Collier told Carver, “Move your f***ing car.” Id. Carver returned to his vehicle with the tire shine, and Collier was “still talking, saying stuff ․, something along the lines of F-you and then F-you.” Id. at 153. Carver responded in kind. Carver used the tire shine and put the bottle back where it came from. “[B]y the time [Carver] got back to [his] car, [Collier] was turned around at his” workstation. Id. “[O]ut of the corner of [his] eye,” Carver saw Collier “kind of turned around and then all lights went out.” Id.

[4] Markus, who had been texting on her phone inside the vehicle, heard “loud” talking and then saw Carver fall backward and hit his head on the floor with an audible “smack[.]” Id. at 186. Markus “got out of the vehicle screaming because [she] realized [Carver] wasn't getting up[,]” and she asked if she should “call the cops[.]” Id. at 187. Collier told her, “He'll be fine. We don't need to call the cops.” Id. at 188. Markus saw “panic in [Collier's] eyes once he realized [Carver] was not moving.” Id. Collier splashed water on Carver's face and tried to “move his face to wake him up and yell[ed] his name.” Id. at 189. Carver was unresponsive and was taken to the hospital.

[5] Carver suffered “a brain bleed, a skull fracture, and a concussion.” Id. at 156. He “had a huge red mark on the back left side of [his] head[,]” and “the brain bleed and skull fracture [were] on the right side of [his] head.” Id. at 168. A few days later, Lowery talked with Collier about the incident. Collier told Lowery that Carver “disrespected [him] so [he] did what [he] had to do.” Id. at 198.

[6] The State charged Collier with Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury and alleged that he was a habitual offender. A jury trial occurred in May 2024. Carver, Markus, and Lowery testified to the foregoing. Collier did not testify, but his counsel argued that “Collier was protecting himself from what he reasonably believed to be imminent use of unlawful force.” Id. at 146.

[7] The State introduced a video from the dealership's surveillance camera that shows Carver walking across the detail department to return the bottle of tire shine. Offscreen, Collier can be heard saying, “Get out of my face. Stay out of my [inaudible].” State's Ex. 1. Carver replies, “Hey man, f**k you.” Id. Collier asks, “What did you say?” Id. As he walks back toward his vehicle, Carver responds, “I said, ‘F**k’ you.” Id. He then disappears offscreen. Collier replies, “What? F**k with me. That's what you doing. F**k with me, bro.” Id. This remark is followed by a loud, high-pitched thwacking sound. Collier again says, “F**k with me, bro.” Id. Three seconds later, a loud thud is heard.

[8] The jury found Collier guilty as charged, and he admitted to being a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced him to nine years executed in the Department of Correction. Collier now appeals his battery conviction.

Discussion and Decision

[9] To convict Collier of Level 5 felony battery as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally touched “Carver in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, by hitting and/or shoving him, resulting in serious bodily injury, to wit: fractured skull and/or brain bleed[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 20; Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), (g)(1). On appeal, Collier argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he touched Carver at all, let alone in a rude, insolent, or angry manner.

[10] Upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility. Id. The evidence that Collier touched Carver is circumstantial. On appeal, “circumstantial evidence need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; rather, the evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.” Mendoza v. State, 869 N.E.2d 546, 554 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. “If the probative evidence and reasonable inferences could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction must be affirmed.” Id.

[11] It is undisputed that Collier and Carver got into a verbal argument that ended with Collier exclaiming, “F**k with me, bro[,]” and Carver falling to the floor and hitting his head. State's Ex. 1. Two separate impact sounds are heard on the surveillance video, and Carver suffered two separate injuries to the back of his head. Collier told Markus that they did not “need to call the cops[,]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 188, which could reasonably be construed as consciousness of guilt. And Collier told Lowery that Carver “disrespected [him] so [he] did what [he] had to do.” Id. at 198. All of this is more than sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find that Collier touched Carver in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Collier's argument to the contrary is merely an invitation to reweigh the evidence and judge witness credibility, which we may not do. Therefore, we affirm his battery conviction.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), (g)(1).

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.