Latanya T-Butler v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                       Jan 29 2016, 6:07 am
    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.
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT                                  ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Ruth Johnson                                             Gregory F. Zoeller
    Marion County Public Defender Agency                     Attorney General of Indiana
    Appellate Division
    Karl M. Scharnberg
    Indianapolis, Indiana                                    Deputy Attorney General
    Kimberly A. Jackson                                      Indianapolis, Indiana
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Latanya T-Butler,                                        January 29, 2016
    Appellant-Defendant,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    49A02-1505-CR-389
    v.                                               Appeal from the
    Marion Superior Court
    State of Indiana,                                        The Honorable
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                                      Amy J. Barbar, Magistrate
    Trial Court Cause No.
    49G02-1303-FB-20098
    Kirsch, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-CR-389 | January 29, 2016       Page 1 of 11
    [1]   Latanya T-Butler (“T-Butler”) was convicted after a jury trial of battery 1 as a
    Class B felony, neglect of a dependent2 as a Class D felony, and battery3 as a
    Class D felony4 and was given an aggregate twelve-year sentence. T-Butler
    raises the following restated issue for our review: whether the evidence
    presented at trial was sufficient to support her convictions for Class B felony
    battery and Class D felony neglect of a dependent.
    [2]   We affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [3]   During the early months of 2013, Laverne Perkins (“Laverne”) had custody of
    J.P., the two-year-old son of her brother, Gerald Perkins (“Gerald”), while
    Gerald was in prison. In February and March of 2013, J.P. was living with
    Laverne and her elderly father, who was in hospice in the home. During that
    period of time, Laverne became ill with the flu. On Sunday, February 24, 2013,
    she spoke with T-Butler, who was engaged to Gerald, and T-Butler offered to
    1
    See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(4).
    2
    See Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4(a)(1).
    3
    See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(2).
    4
    We note that, effective July 1, 2014, new versions of these criminal statutes were enacted. Because T-Butler
    committed her crimes prior to July 1, 2014, we will apply the statutes in effect at the time she committed her
    crimes.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-CR-389 | January 29, 2016           Page 2 of 11
    take J.P. for three days so Laverne could recover from the flu. On the same
    date, T-Butler took J.P. into her home to care for him.
    [4]   On the date that T-Butler took J.P., he had no marks or injuries on his body.
    J.P. had been diagnosed with ringworm, and Laverne forgot to send his
    medication when J.P. went to T-Butler’s home. T-Butler had two other boys in
    her home, a three-year-old and an eighteen-month-old. Laverne spoke on the
    phone with T-Butler every day that J.P. was staying with T-Butler. During one
    of these calls, T-Butler told Laverne that J.P. had an accident in the bathroom,
    had taken off his pajamas, and had played “with the boo boo in the toilet,
    splashing all over the bathroom.” Tr. at 20-21. T-Butler also told Gerald about
    the incident when she spoke with him on the phone as the incident was
    occurring.5 When T-Butler first discovered what J.P. had done, she struck J.P.
    Gerald and T-Butler continued to discuss the incident and speak about how
    Laverne let J.P. get away with too much. At one point, T-Butler said that
    Laverne was “priming [J.P.] to get his ass tore up. I’m not going for none of
    that shit.” State’s Ex. 19; State’s Ex. 20 at 24. While talking with Gerald, T-
    Butler also mentioned am incident where J.P. urinated on her floor, and she
    “tried to remodel his ass.” State’s Ex. 19; State’s Ex. 20 at 5.
    [5]   During her conversation with Gerald, T-Butler mentioned an earlier incident
    where J.P. had told her no and told her to “shut up.” State’s Ex. 19; State’s Ex.
    5
    Gerald was incarcerated in the Miami Correctional Facility at the time and several of his recorded phone
    calls were admitted at trial.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-CR-389 | January 29, 2016          Page 3 of 11
    20 at 12. T-Butler hit J.P. in the mouth, causing his lips to swell noticeably.
    On Wednesday, the day when J.P. was originally supposed to go back to
    Laverne’s house, Laverne called T-Butler to inform her that she would be
    coming over to pick up J.P., but T-Butler told Laverne that J.P. was watching
    movies with her boys and that Laverne did not sound well yet. Laverne told T-
    Butler that she would bring over some more clothing for J.P., but T-Butler told
    Laverne they were not home. T-Butler said they were at McDonald’s, so
    Laverne arranged for a mutual friend to take clothes to the restaurant.
    [6]   Laverne gave Juanita Chavers (“Juanita”), the mutual friend, a bag of clothing
    and J.P.’s ringworm medication and told Juanita to let T-Butler know that
    Laverne would take J.P. back at the monthly meeting of the motorcycle club, to
    which they all belonged, that was scheduled for the next Sunday. T-Butler was
    not at the McDonald’s when Juanita arrived, so Juanita proceeded to T-Butler’s
    home. When she got to the home, Juanita saw J.P., but he did not seem to be
    as energetic as usual. She also observed that his face was scratched, his lip was
    swollen, and he was crying. Juanita also noticed that J.P. would stop crying
    whenever T-Butler would look at him. Juanita thought that J.P. and the other
    boys had been in a fight, so she did not say anything.
    [7]   DeMetra Perkins (“DeMetra”), who is Laverne’s niece and a cousin to J.P.,
    went to T-Butler’s home that same night to do T-Butler’s hair. When she saw
    J.P., she noticed that his lip was “busted,” and she asked T-Butler what
    happened to him. Tr. at 156. T-Butler explained to DeMetra that J.P. had told
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-CR-389 | January 29, 2016   Page 4 of 11
    her no and told her to shut up, so she had “popped him” in the mouth. 
    Id. DeMetra observed
    that J.P. was being quiet and kind of sleepy.
    [8]   On Sunday, March 3, 2013, at the club meeting, T-Butler brought J.P., and
    Laverne immediately noticed that J.P.’s lips were swollen and “pussy,” he had
    scratches on his face, there were open sores behind his ears, his hands were
    swollen, and his “mouth was stuck like he really couldn’t talk.” 
    Id. at 24-25.
    When Laverne asked what had happened, T-Butler denied anything happened
    to J.P. and said she did not even notice anything wrong with him. She also
    stated that one of her boys could have hit him with a toy and later also admitted
    that she had spanked J.P. During the meeting, some people came over and
    tried to pick J.P. up, but he would start crying when they did, so Laverne tried
    to get him to sit next to her, but he only wanted to stand.
    [9]   Laverne told T-Butler that something was wrong with J.P. and that Laverne
    intended to take him to the hospital. T-Butler did not want Laverne to take him
    to the hospital and, instead, suggested that Laverne take him to DeMetra’s
    mother, Dorothy, who is a nurse. Laverne did so and allowed Dorothy to look
    at J.P. When Dorothy pulled down J.P.’s pull-up diaper, she ripped off a bunch
    of scabs from J.P.’s buttocks, and his buttocks were bleeding. At that time,
    Laverne took J.P straight to the hospital. While she was on her way there,
    Laverne received several phone calls from T-Butler asking if Laverne was really
    taking J.P to the hospital. During these calls, when Laverne asked T-Butler
    who had taken care of J.P., T-Butler responded, “nobody but [me].” 
    Id. at 35.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-CR-389 | January 29, 2016   Page 5 of 11
    [10]   At the hospital, it was determined that J.P. had second degree burns on both of
    his buttocks, which had been caused by contact with a very hot flat object. His
    left buttock was infected, and both sides had dead skin. The burn on his right
    buttock measured eight-and-a-half centimeters by five centimeters, and the burn
    on the left side measured five centimeters by five centimeters. The burns were
    determined to be at least forty-eight hours old, but less than seven days old.
    Additionally, it was discovered that J.P. had an abrasion and bruising on his
    forehead, a superficial laceration to his lip, and bruises to his thighs. It was also
    determined that J.P. had finger-shaped bruises to his upper arms and around
    both knees. J.P. was running a fever of 102 degrees, which the doctor who
    treated J.P. stated was “a significant fever for a two year old.” 
    Id. at 77.
    J.P.’s
    symptoms of listlessness, fever, and elevated white blood cell count were
    attributed to a staph infection from the burns on his buttocks.
    [11]   J.P. was admitted into the hospital and stayed for a week. He received I.V.
    fluids and antibiotics and was treated for sepsis, which is the body’s response to
    a severe infection where oxidants are released into the bloodstream in large
    quantities. 
    Id. at 118.
    These oxidants are toxic, and sepsis can be fatal. The
    burns to J.P.’s buttocks were determined to be the source of the sepsis. A hot
    plate consistent with the burns found on J.P.’s buttocks was found in T-Butler’s
    house.
    [12]   On March 26, 2013, the State charged T-Butler with battery as a Class B felony,
    neglect of a dependent as a Class B felony, and battery as a Class D felony. A
    jury trial was held on March 30 and 31, 2015. At trial, T-Butler’s defense was
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-CR-389 | January 29, 2016   Page 6 of 11
    that J.P.’s injuries were caused because he contracted an extremely rare
    disorder called Stevens-Johnson Syndrome as a side effect of his ringworm
    medication. However, Dr. Clinton Cavett (“Dr. Cavett”), the doctor who
    treated J.P., ruled out Stevens-Johnson Syndrome because it shows up all over
    the body and resists treatment. J.P.’s symptoms were localized to his buttocks,
    and responded immediately to antibiotics. Tr. at 106-08, 114. At the
    conclusion of the trial, the jury found T-Butler guilty of all three counts. On
    May 8, 2014, a sentencing hearing was held, and the trial court amended the
    Class B felony neglect of a dependent conviction to a Class D felony. The trial
    court sentenced T-Butler to twelve years for her Class B felony battery
    conviction with ten years executed and two years suspended to probation to run
    concurrent with a two-year-sentence for her Class D felony neglect of a
    dependent conviction, but consecutive to a two-year-sentence for her Class D
    felony battery conviction, which resulted in an aggregate sentence of twelve
    years executed. T-Butler now appeals.
    Discussion and Decision
    [13]   The deferential standard of review for sufficiency claims is well settled. When
    we review the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we do not
    reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. Boggs v. State,
    
    928 N.E.2d 855
    , 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. We consider only the
    evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences that can be
    drawn from this evidence. Fuentes v. State, 
    10 N.E.3d 68
    , 75 (Ind. Ct. App.
    2014), trans. denied. We will not disturb the jury’s verdict if there is substantial
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-CR-389 | January 29, 2016   Page 7 of 11
    evidence of probative value to support it. 
    Id. A conviction
    may be based upon
    circumstantial evidence alone. 
    Boggs, 928 N.E.2d at 864
    . We will affirm unless
    no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
    reasonable doubt. Tooley v. State, 
    911 N.E.2d 721
    , 724-25 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009),
    trans. denied. As the reviewing court, we respect “the jury’s exclusive province
    to weigh conflicting evidence.” McHenry v. State, 
    820 N.E.2d 124
    , 126 (Ind.
    2005).
    [14]   T-Butler argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her
    convictions for battery as a Class B felony and neglect of a dependent as a Class
    D felony. As to the battery conviction, she specifically contends that
    insufficient evidence was presented to prove that she was responsible for any
    serious injury to J.P’s buttocks because all of J.P.’s injuries were consistent with
    the side effects of the ringworm medication he was taking. As to the neglect of
    a dependent conviction, T-Butler asserts that the State failed to prove beyond a
    reasonable doubt that she knowingly placed J.P. in a situation that endangered
    his life or health because insufficient evidence was presented to show she was
    responsible for J.P.’s injury to his buttocks or that she failed to obtain medical
    treatment for him.
    [15]   In order to convict T-Butler of Class B felony battery, the State was required to
    prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was at least eighteen years of age and
    knowingly or intentionally touched J.P., who was less than fourteen years old,
    in a rude, insolent, or angry manner resulting in serious bodily injury to J.P.
    Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(4). In the charging information, the State specifically
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-CR-389 | January 29, 2016   Page 8 of 11
    alleged that T-Butler struck or burned J.P., which caused “serious permanent
    disfigurement and/or extreme pain” to J.P. Appellant’s App. at 21.
    [16]   In the present case, the evidence showed that, when J.P. was brought to the
    hospital on March 3, 2013, he was suffering from second degree burns on both
    of his buttocks, which had been caused by contact with a very hot flat object.
    Prior to that date, J.P. had been staying with T-Butler in her home continuously
    for seven days. During that period of time, he was only at T-Butler’s home and
    in her care. Evidence was also presented that, at the time that J.P. was placed
    in T-Butler’s care, he did not have any injuries, but that the injuries were
    present when he was returned to Laverne’s care. The State presented evidence
    that a hot plate consistent with the burns on J.P.’s buttocks was found in T-
    Butler’s home. Dr. Cavett confirmed that the burns on J.P.’s body could have
    been inflicted with the hot plate. Tr. at 111. T-Butler’s arguments that J.P.’s
    injuries were caused by an adverse reaction to his ringworm medication are a
    request for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do on appeal.
    
    Boggs, 928 N.E.2d at 864
    . She presented this defense theory at trial, and the
    jury clearly disregarded it and found her guilty of the crime. Viewing the
    evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, as our standard of review
    dictates, we conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support T-
    Butler’s conviction for Class B felony battery.
    [17]   In order to convict T-Butler of Class D felony neglect of a dependent, the State
    was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she, having the care of
    J.P., knowingly or intentionally placed J.P. in a situation that endangered his
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-CR-389 | January 29, 2016   Page 9 of 11
    life or health. Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4(a)(1). Specifically, the State alleged in the
    charging information that T-Butler placed J.P. in a situation that endangered
    his life or health when she “failed to seek medical attention for [J.P.] after . . .
    T-Butler did observe that [J.P.] was injured and/or . . . T-Butler did injure
    [J.P.]” Appellant’s App. at 21-22.
    [18]   Initially, T-Butler again raises the argument that she did not cause J.P.’s injuries
    because they resulted from an adverse reaction to his medication. As we stated
    above, this is merely an invitation for this court to reweigh the evidence, which
    we do not do. 
    Boggs, 928 N.E.2d at 864
    . The evidence presented at trial
    showed that the burns to J.P.’s buttocks were inflicted by T-Butler, probably
    using the hotplate on his bare buttocks, and not by an adverse reaction to his
    medication. Based on the evidence most favorable to the verdict that T-Butler
    inflicted the injuries to J.P., she was, therefore, aware that the injuries existed
    and knew the nature of the injuries. Moreover, the evidence established that
    she did not seek medical attention for J.P. by taking him to the doctor or
    hospital. In fact, when Laverne discovered the injuries upon J.P.’s return to her
    care and informed T-Butler that she was taking J.P. to the hospital, T-Butler
    attempted to stop her from doing so. At trial, evidence was presented that T-
    Butler tried to convince Laverne not to take J.P. to the hospital because T-
    Butler feared that the Department of Child Services would then become
    involved in her life. Tr. at 28, 210. T-Butler, therefore, not only failed to seek
    medical care for J.P. and for the injuries she inflicted on him, but she also
    attempted to impede others from obtaining medical attention for J.P. We
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-CR-389 | January 29, 2016   Page 10 of 11
    conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support T-Butler’s conviction
    for Class D felony neglect of a dependent.
    [19]   Affirmed.
    Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-CR-389 | January 29, 2016   Page 11 of 11
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 49A02-1505-CR-389

Filed Date: 1/29/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/29/2016