Ra'Dreeka Gillespie v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Oct 20 2016, 9:19 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J Burns Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ra’Dreeka Gillespie, October 20, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1603-CR-577
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy M. Jones,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G08-1503-CM-8473
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-577 | October 20, 2016 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Ra’Dreeka Gillespie appeals her conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery.
We affirm.
Issue
[2] Gillespie raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence is sufficient
to sustain her conviction.
Facts
[3] Chasia Sutton worked at a Family Dollar store in Marion County. Gillespie
was dating Sutton’s ex-girlfriend. On January 13, 2015, Gillespie entered the
store with Sutton’s ex-girlfriend while Sutton was working, and there was a
verbal exchange between the women. Gillespie and the ex-girlfriend left, and a
few minutes later, Gillespie returned with three other women. The three
women entered the store and found Sutton stocking shelves. They poured
water on Sutton’s head and then began hitting and kicking her. Gillespie joined
in and stomped on Sutton’s head and side. Keyaira Smith, Sutton’s sister, was
waiting outside to pick up Sutton. She entered the store and heard screaming
and fighting. She found Sutton on the ground surrounded by the three women,
who were fighting with her, and she saw Gillespie watching and laughing. As a
result of the beating, Sutton had migraines and shoulder pain.
[4] The State charged Gillespie with Class A misdemeanor battery. After a bench
trial, Gillespie was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced her to 365
days in jail with 361 days suspended to probation. Gillespie now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-577 | October 20, 2016 Page 2 of 4
Analysis
[5] Gillespie argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to support a criminal
conviction, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Bailey v.
State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). “We consider only the evidence
supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
such evidence.” Id. We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative
value such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant
was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[6] At the time of the incident, the offense of battery was governed by Indiana
Code Section 35-42-2-1(b), which provided that “a person who knowingly or
intentionally: (1) touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner . .
. commits battery . . . .”1 The offense was a Class A misdemeanor if it resulted
in bodily injury to any other person. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c). Gillespie argues
that the State failed to present any evidence that she actually hit Sutton.
According to Gillespie, Sutton’s “version of the events was highly questionable
. . . .” Appellant’s Br. p. 7. Gillespie argues that it would have been impossible
for Sutton to see who was hitting her and that Sutton’s testimony conflicted
with Smith’s testimony. Gillespie contends that Smith only saw Gillespie
laughing.
1
The statute was amended by Pub. L. No. 65-2016, § 33 (eff. July 1. 2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-577 | October 20, 2016 Page 3 of 4
[7] Sutton testified that Gillespie stomped her on the head and side, and the trial
court found Sutton’s account to be credible. Further, a security camera video of
the incident was admitted at the trial. The security camera footage is consistent
with Sutton’s account of the incident. After Sutton was attacked by the three
women, Gillespie is seen approaching them and making movements consistent
with kicking Sutton, who was on the ground. After Smith entered the store,
Gillespie is not seen touching Sutton. Consequently, the security video is also
consistent with Smith’s testimony. Gillespie’s argument is merely a request that
we reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we
cannot do. Bailey, 907 N.E.2d at 1005. The evidence is sufficient to sustain
Gillespie’s conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery.
Conclusion
[8] The evidence is sufficient to sustain Gillespie’s conviction. We affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-577 | October 20, 2016 Page 4 of 4