A.H. Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA (2009)

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Case Summary

A.H. appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery. Specifically, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

The facts most favorable to the judgment reveal that on January 26, 2009, Donald Stafford pulled his car into a handicapped parking space at an Indianapolis Kroger. Stafford then began to exit his car. As Stafford reached for his cane and put his leg out of the car, A.H. approached Stafford, told Stafford that he “took his parking spot,” and kicked him in the knee. Tr. p. 6, 7. Two women witnessed the event, and they called the police. A.H. was apprehended inside the store. As a result of the kick, Stafford's knee was skinned and bruised, which caused him pain.

The State charged A.H. with Class A misdemeanor battery. A bench trial was held in May 2009. At trial, A.H. testified that he exited his truck and approached Stafford, who was sitting in his car, because Stafford almost hit his truck as he pulled into the handicapped parking space. A.H. also testified that Stafford initially did not exit his car but instead lodged racial remarks toward him. Then later, Stafford exited his car and poked A.H. with his cane. The court found A.H. guilty as charged and sentenced him to 365 days with 355 days suspended and credit for time served and eighty hours of community service. A.H. now appeals his conviction.

Discussion and Decision

contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. When A.H. reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts must only consider the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is the fact-finder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient. Id. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it “most favorably to the trial court's ruling.” Id. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 146-47 (quotation omitted). It is therefore not necessary that the evidence “overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Id. at 147 (quotation omitted). “[T]he evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the [judgment].” Id. (quotation omitted).

In order to convict A.H. as charged here, the State had to prove that he knowingly touched Stafford in a rude, insolent, or angry manner and that the touching resulted in bodily injury to Stafford, specifically, pain and/or redness. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1; Appellant's App. p. 15. On appeal, A.H. in essence argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the record is so short. See Appellant's Br. p. 4 (“Counsel would state that the shortness of the record is significant ․”). However, the fact that the transcript from the trial consists of less than twenty pages has no bearing on whether the State has met its burden of proving each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, we look to the evidence presented. That evidence shows that A.H. approached Stafford as Stafford was exiting his car and kicked him in the knee, skinning and bruising it and causing him pain. The evidence is sufficient to support A.H. ’s conviction. As such, A.H. is merely asking us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. We therefore affirm the trial court.

Affirmed.

VAIDIK, Judge

RILEY, J., and CRONE, J, concur.