Donald Carlisle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 17 2019, 7:34 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Sally Skodinski Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Samantha M. Sumcad
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Donald Carlisle, December 17, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1154
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John M.
Appellee-Plaintiff Marnocha, Judge
The Honorable Julie P. Verheye,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
71D04-1809-CM-3019
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1154 | December 17, 2019 Page 1 of 5
[1] Donald Carlisle appeals his conviction for Class A Misdemeanor Battery,1
arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Finding the
evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On September 3, 2018, Carlisle and Allison Angel were at Angel’s house in
South Bend. That morning, Angel tried to remove Carlisle’s drug pipe from his
pocket while he was still sleeping. Carlisle woke up and became infuriated.
Angel testified that as she began to lie down, “all of a sudden I felt something
bam in my face.” Tr. Vol. II p. 6. Angel remembered there being a bottle of
vodka right next to the bed. She believed that Carlisle had struck her with the
bottle and that the wallop had felt “[j]ust like an explosion.” Id. at 7. Angel then
ran to her neighbor’s house to call the police.
[3] Two officers were dispatched to the scene. South Bend Police Department
Officer Charles Rothy spoke with Angel and photographed her face, noticing a
large bump over her eye. Officer Anthony Ieraci was also dispatched, but on the
way there, he ended up finding Carlisle’s vehicle and pulling him over. Officer
Ieraci saw that Carlisle had dried blood on his hands, and Carlisle stated that
the blood was Angel’s.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), -1(d)(1). The statutory citation in the trial court’s sentencing order—and
throughout the Chronological Case Summary—is incomplete. As such, we have corrected this scrivener’s
error with the complete citation for Class A misdemeanor battery.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1154 | December 17, 2019 Page 2 of 5
[4] On September 5, 2018, the State charged Carlisle with one count of Class A
misdemeanor battery. Following Carlisle’s April 25, 2019, bench trial, at which
Angel, Officer Rothy, and Officer Ieraci all testified, the trial court found
Carlisle guilty as charged. The next day, April 26, 2019, the trial court
sentenced Carlisle to 20 days executed in the Department of Correction and 345
days of probation, with a no-contact order in place to protect Angel for the
duration of Carlisle’s probation. Carlisle now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Carlisle’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery. When reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we must affirm if the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom could have
allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). It is not
our job to reweigh the evidence or to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and
we consider any conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.
Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind. 2005).
[6] To convict Carlisle of Class A misdemeanor battery, the State was required to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Carlisle knowingly or intentionally
touched Angel in a rude, insolent, or angry manner and that the touching
resulted in bodily injury to her. I.C. § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), -1(d)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1154 | December 17, 2019 Page 3 of 5
[7] First, we find that Carlisle’s reliance on the incredible dubiosity rule is
misplaced. “Application of [the incredible dubiosity rule] is very narrow and
permitted only ‘where a sole witness presents inherently contradictory
testimony that is equivocal or coerced and there is a lack of circumstantial
evidence of guilt.’” Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1059 (Ind. 2011) (quoting
Whedon v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1276, 1278 (Ind. 2002)). Here, Angel was not the
sole witness testifying—Officers Rothy and Ieraci also testified. Consequently,
the incredible dubiosity rule does not apply in Carlisle’s case.
[8] Next, the evidence shows that on the night of the incident, Angel attempted to
remove Carlisle’s drug pipe from his pocket while he was sleeping. Then, Angel
testified that she felt a smashing over her head that resulted in a large bump and
felt like an explosion. Angel remembered seeing a vodka bottle next to the bed,
and it is undisputed that Angel and Carlisle were the only two individuals
inside the room at the time. The State proffered photographs taken by Officer
Rothy showing Angel’s injuries and her condition immediately following the
attack. Additionally, Officer Ieraci pulled Carlisle over and noticed that there
was dried blood on Carlisle’s hands. Carlisle even admitted that the blood on
his hands was not his, but Angel’s.
[9] A reasonable factfinder could have inferred that Carlisle struck Angel with the
vodka bottle from the facts that the bottle was by the bed, no one else was
present, Angel felt something smash on her head, and she was injured as a
result. In other words, based on this evidence, a reasonable factfinder could
have convicted Carlisle of Class A misdemeanor battery. In considering all
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1154 | December 17, 2019 Page 4 of 5
evidence and inferences most favorably to the verdict, we find the evidence
sufficient to support the conviction.
[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1154 | December 17, 2019 Page 5 of 5