Garrick J. Troupe v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Nov 10 2015, 10:25 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kristin A. Mulholland Gregory F. Zoeller
Crown Point, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Larry D. Allen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Garrick J. Troupe, November 10, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
45A03-1503-CR-113
v. Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Salvador Vasquez,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
45G01-1211-MR-10
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1503-CR-113| November 10, 2015 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Garrick Troupe appeals his conviction for Class B felony aggravated battery.
We affirm.
Issue
[2] Troupe raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence is sufficient
to sustain his conviction.
Facts
[3] Michael Williams and Schacie Jackson had a child together. On November 7,
2012, Williams was drinking heavily, and Jackson and the child went to stay
with Troupe and his girlfriend. Williams later asked Darryl Jordan for a ride to
Troupe’s house, and Jordan agreed to take him. When they arrived at the
house, Williams got into an argument with Troupe, and Williams broke the
glass in the front door. Williams then went back to Jordan’s vehicle and told
Jordan that they needed to leave. Troupe approached the passenger side of the
vehicle, where Williams was seated, and shot Williams. The bullet passed
through Williams and hit Jordan, killing him.
[4] The State charged Troupe with murder, Class A felony attempted murder,
Class B felony aggravated battery, and Class C felony battery by means of a
deadly weapon. A jury found Troupe not guilty of murder and attempted
murder but guilty of aggravated battery and battery. The trial court entered
judgment of conviction on the aggravated battery verdict only and sentenced
Troupe to nine years in the Department of Correction. Troupe now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1503-CR-113| November 10, 2015 Page 2 of 5
Analysis
[5] Troupe argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his 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] The offense of aggravated battery is governed by Indiana Code Section 35-42-2-
1.5, which at the time of Troupe’s actions provided: “A person who knowingly
or intentionally inflicts injury on a person that creates a substantial risk of death
or causes: (1) serious permanent disfigurement; (2) protracted loss or
impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or (3) the loss of a
fetus; commits aggravated battery, a Class B felony.” The State charged that
Troupe “did knowingly inflict injury on Michael T. Williams that created a
substantial risk of death . . . .” App. p. 10. Thus, the State was required to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Troupe knowingly inflicted an injury on
Williams that created a substantial risk of death.
[7] Troupe argues that Williams’s injury was not severe enough to create a
substantial risk of death. Troupe relies on Alexander v. State, 13 N.E.3d 917(Ind. Ct. App. 2014), in which the defendant used a semiautomatic weapon to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1503-CR-113| November 10, 2015 Page 3 of 5
shoot at a vehicle. There, the defendant challenged whether he had inflicted an
injury that created a substantial risk of death. The State had presented limited
evidence concerning the victim’s injury. Testimony indicated that the victim
had sustained a graze wound to his back and sought no medical treatment. We
concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove the victim’s injury created
a substantial risk of death. Alexander, 13 N.E.3d at 922.
[8] Troupe’s argument is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we
cannot do. The State presented evidence that the bullet entered and exited
Williams’s chest and then entered and exited his arm. When he arrived at the
hospital, he was bleeding and blood was “pouring out of one of the sleeves of
his coat . . . .” Tr. p. 46. Although Williams’s injuries did not require surgery
or stitches, he was in the hospital for two to three days and received
medication. We conclude that this evidence was sufficient to demonstrate an
injury that created a substantial risk of death. Williams’s injury was much
more severe than the graze wound in Alexander that did not require any medical
treatment. See, e.g., Oeth v. State, 775 N.E.2d 696, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)
(holding that the jury could reasonably infer that the victim’s injuries created a
substantial risk of death where the victim was struck on the back of the head
with a hatchet, lost consciousness, had “profuse bleeding from her wounds
which the emergency room doctor had trouble stopping,” and required
stitches), trans. denied; Wilcher v. State, 771 N.E.2d 113, 117 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)
(affirming the defendant’s aggravated battery conviction where the victim was
stabbed in the chest, was unconscious and had problems breathing, and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1503-CR-113| November 10, 2015 Page 4 of 5
remained hospitalized for five days while connected to a lung machine), trans.
denied. The evidence is sufficient to sustain Troupe’s conviction.
Conclusion
[9] The evidence is sufficient to sustain Troupe’s conviction. We affirm.
[10] Affirmed.
[11] Kirsch, J., and Najam, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1503-CR-113| November 10, 2015 Page 5 of 5