Janise K. Cox v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 23 2017, 9:26 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Lyubov Gore
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Janise K. Cox, August 23, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1703-CR-519
v. Appeal from the
Marion Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. David E. Lewis, Judge Pro
Tempore
Trial Court Cause No.
49G17-1607-F6-27433
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-519 | August 23, 2017 Page 1 of 5
[1] Janise K. Cox (“Cox”) appeals her conviction for Class A misdemeanor
domestic battery,1 challenging the sufficiency of the State’s evidence.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Cox and M.G. (“M.G.”) are the parents of two children. They have been
separated for years and have an agreed custody arrangement. On July 3, 2016,
M.G. arrived at Cox’s mother’s home to drop off the children. M.G.’s friend,
Kevin Hunter (“Hunter”), was a passenger in M.G.’s truck at the time of the
exchange. Cox appeared by M.G.’s truck and yelled at him concerning child
support. Cox became “kind of aggressive,” so M.G. used his cell phone to
record some of the incident. Tr. at 12. Cox hit M.G. with a closed fist in the
face, he called 911, and she continued to try to hit him. Cox stopped when her
stepfather came out of the house and intervened.
[4] The State charged Cox with count I, Level 6 felony domestic battery, and count
II, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. At the bench trial, M.G. testified
that when he arrived at Cox’s mother’s home, he got out of the car briefly, as
the kids exited and walked to the house, and Cox appeared unexpectedly at the
back of his truck. As he tried to get back into the vehicle, she prevented him
from closing his door and yelled at him. M.G. testified that Cox “punched”
1
See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-519 | August 23, 2017 Page 2 of 5
him with a closed fist and that he received bruises to the side of his face. Id.; see
also id. at 19 (“She landed a punch on the side of my face.”). M.G.’s cell phone
video recording was admitted over Cox’s objection. M.G. stated that he
stopped recording as he called 911 and held out his arm to try “to keep her from
hitting me[,]” but she continued to “swing” at him. Id. at 14.
[5] Hunter, who was seated in the truck when the children and M.G. got out of the
vehicle, testified that Cox and M.G. “started arguing” and that Cox “swung on
[M.G.].” Id. at 22-23. Cox also testified at trial, stating that she and M.G.
argued and that she pushed M.G.’s phone out of her face, but she denied that
she hit M.G.
[6] After the State rested, Cox moved for and was granted involuntary dismissal as
to count I. Finding that M.G. was “very believable” and Cox was “not very
believable at all,” the trial court found Cox guilty of Class A misdemeanor
domestic battery. Id. at 34. Cox now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Cox argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for
domestic battery.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative
evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. 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 to support a conviction. To preserve this structure,
when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-519 | August 23, 2017 Page 3 of 5
they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.
Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-
finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence
overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The
evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn
from it to support the verdict.
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). “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).
[8] To convict Cox of domestic battery as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was
required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly touched M.G.
in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1). Cox
alleges on appeal that the evidence does not establish the element of touching
M.G. in a rude, insolent, or angry manner.
[9] On appeal, Cox suggests that M.G.’s video recording did not show her touch or
hit M.G., and argues that, although M.G. testified that she punched him, he
“had a motive to fabricate a story” and “exaggerate the account of the
situation,” in order to “get back at [Cox].” Appellant’s Br. at 9. Cox’s argument
is merely a request for us to reweigh the evidence on appeal, which we cannot
do. Palacios v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1026, 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). The State
presented sufficient evidence to convict Cox of Class A misdemeanor domestic
battery.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-519 | August 23, 2017 Page 4 of 5
[10] Affirmed.
[11] Najam, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-519 | August 23, 2017 Page 5 of 5