Nicholas Martin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Aug 25 2017, 8:45 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ellen M. O’Connor Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Matthew B. Mackenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Nicholas Martin, August 25, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1703-CR-503
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela Dow-
Appellee-Plaintiff. Davis, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G16-1605-F6-20076
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-503 | August 25, 2017 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Nicholas Martin appeals his conviction for Level 6 felony strangulation. We
affirm.
Issue
[2] The issue before us is whether there is sufficient evidence to support Martin’s
conviction.
Facts
[3] The evidence most favorable to the conviction is that on the evening of May 8,
2016, Martin, Dinisha Harris, Shilia Giles, Cilitha, and Patrice met for drinks at
Cilitha’s house in Indianapolis.1 Martin drove the group to Tiki Bob’s bar, from
which they proceeded to a nightclub, Blue. Approximately twenty minutes
later, Harris and Giles left the group behind at Blue and went to meet someone
at a venue across the street. Martin, who had driven the group, sent belligerent
text messages to Harris and Giles demanding to know their whereabouts and
insisting that it was time to leave.
[4] When Harris and Giles reunited with the group, Martin berated them and
called them “b******” and “s****” for leaving him at Blue. Tr. p. 11. En route
to Cilitha’s house, Martin, Giles, and Harris started fighting in the car. When
1
The record does not include surnames for Cilitha or Patrice.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-503 | August 25, 2017 Page 2 of 6
they arrived at Cilitha’s house, Giles remained outside. Inside, Harris packed
her belongings and prepared to leave.
[5] Martin apologized and tried to persuade Harris to stay. As Harris walked away
with her belongings, Martin struck the back of her head with his fist. A
physical altercation ensued between Martin and Harris, with Cilitha trying to
intervene. Harris ran for the door, but Martin caught her and “threw [her] on
the couch and . . . choked [her].” Id. at 13. “He used both of his hands and he
wrapped them around [her] neck and he squoze [sic].” Id. At trial, Harris
testified that Martin hurt her and restricted her breathing.
[6] Concerned that Harris was taking too long to emerge from the house, Giles
knocked at the front door. When Cilitha unlocked the door, Giles entered and
observed Harris crying.
[7] Harris suffered an “extreme, extreme migraine” after the incident and sought
medical treatment. Id. at 14. The following day, she reported the incident to
police, who photographed her injuries – a split lip and a bruised arm – in the
course of their investigation.
[8] On May 31, 2016, the State charged Martin with Level 6 felony strangulation
and class A misdemeanor battery. After a bench trial on February 9, 2017,
Martin was found guilty on both counts, but the trial court merged the battery
conviction with the strangulation conviction. He was sentenced to 365 days in
jail, suspended to probation. The court also imposed a no-contact order and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-503 | August 25, 2017 Page 3 of 6
ordered domestic violence counseling and electronic monitoring. Martin now
appeals.
Analysis
[9] Martin argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We
neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Willis v.
State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066-67 (Ind. 2015) (citations and quotation marks
omitted). We only consider the evidence supporting the judgment and any
reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence. Id. A conviction
will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting
each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It is the job of the fact-
finder to determine whether the evidence in a particular case sufficiently proves
each element of an offense, and we consider conflicting evidence most
favorably to the judgment. Id.[10] To convict Martin of strangulation as a Level 6 felony, the State was required to
prove that he, in a rude, angry, or insolent manner, knowingly or intentionally
applied pressure to Harris’s throat or neck; or (2) obstructed Harris’s nose or
mouth in a manner that impeded her normal breathing or blood circulation. See
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-9(b)(2016).2 Martin argues that there was insufficient
2
The legislature amended Indiana Code section 35-42-2-9, effective as of July 1, 2017, to provide that a
person commits Level 6 felony strangulation if the person applies pressure to the torso of another person.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-503 | August 25, 2017 Page 4 of 6
reliable evidence to sustain his conviction, given the parties’ alcohol
consumption, heightened emotions, and the lack of corroborating physical
evidence – namely, the alleged inconsistency of Harris’s injuries with
strangulation of the neck and throat.
[11] Martin essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence, to assess the credibility of
witnesses, and to favor his testimony over that of Harris and Giles. We cannot
do so. Harris testified that, when she attempted to leave Cilitha’s house, Martin
placed his hands on her throat and squeezed, causing her pain and rendering
her unable to breathe. She also testified that she suffered a migraine afterwards.
Giles testified that she saw Harris crying immediately after the incident. In his
testimony, Martin conceded that he insulted and tried to grab Harris, but he
denied “know[ing] where any of the strangulation stuff [allegations] came
from.” Tr. p. 45.
[12] The trial court was in the best position to weigh the evidence and to assess the
witnesses’ credibility, and it was unpersuaded by Martin’s testimony. Nor are
we persuaded that Harris’s testimony was unreliable because of alcohol use,
heightened emotions, and the alleged lack of corroborating physical evidence of
strangulation. The lack of corroborating evidence bears on the victim’s
credibility, and we treat the issue like any other issue concerning the credibility
of witnesses; we do not judge the credibility of witnesses. Griffith v. State, 59
N.E.3d 947, 958 (Ind. 2016). Moreover, the State presented testimony of more
than one witness. Giles’s testimony that Harris was crying after the incident
certainly bolsters Harris’s testimony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-503 | August 25, 2017 Page 5 of 6
[13] The State presented substantial evidence of probative value that Martin squeezed
Harris’s throat such that she could not breathe. Sufficient evidence exists to
sustain Martin’s conviction for strangulation.
Conclusion
[14] Sufficient evidence supported Martin’s conviction. We affirm his conviction for
Level 6 felony strangulation.
[15] Affirmed.
May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-503 | August 25, 2017 Page 6 of 6