Jaquecke Hughes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 31 2016, 9:37 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Suzy St. John Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jaquecke Hughes, August 31, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1601-CR-10
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven Rubick,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G19-1506-CM-20715
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1601-CR-10 | August 31, 2016 Page 1 of 7
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Jaquecke Hughes (Hughes), appeals her conviction for
disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3(a)(1) (2014).
[2] We reverse.
ISSUE
[3] Hughes raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether the
State presented sufficient evidence to support her conviction for disorderly
conduct.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On June 12, 2015, Officer Michael Roach (Officer Roach) of the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department was dispatched to 1853 North Holmes
Avenue, Indianapolis, in Marion County, Indiana, in response to a disturbance
among some family members. When he arrived, he discovered that two of the
residents, Hughes and her mother, were having a disagreement about their
living arrangement. Officer Roach discerned that Hughes was living in her
mother’s home, and her mother wanted to evict her. Hughes explained to
Officer Roach “that she was currently trying to find another place to live.” (Tr.
p. 7). Officer Roach observed that “[e]verybody was angry,” and he attempted
to diffuse the situation by suggesting that Hughes’ “mother let [Hughes] have
some time to find a new place to live. And everybody agreed to that.” (Tr. p.
7). Feeling that the situation had been resolved, Officer Roach left the scene.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1601-CR-10 | August 31, 2016 Page 2 of 7
[5] Approximately five minutes later, Officer Roach was dispatched to return to the
residence. When he arrived, he observed “at least four people” outside, which
included Hughes, Hughes’ mother, Hughes’ sister, and Hughes’ girlfriend. (Tr.
p. 9). “It appeared by looking at the area that there had been some type of fight
or altercation.” (Tr. p. 8). “Specifically there was a chair that was on the patio
when we left. It was in the grass. There was a purse scattered about in the
grass. And there were multiple people that were still very angry.” (Tr. p. 9).
Hughes reported to Officer Roach that her mother had initially left the
residence after the officer’s first visit, but she “came back and started an
altercation.” (Tr. p. 9). Officer Roach could not recall whether Hughes stated
that she had fought back when her mother began the altercation.
[6] Officer Roach observed “a very small cut to the top of [Hughes’] lip” as well as
injuries to Hughes’ neck. (Tr. p. 10). Officer Roach recalled that Hughes’
mother “had a small abrasion above her eye,” and Hughes’ sister complained of
some type of “pain.” (Tr. p. 29). Hughes’ girlfriend also had injuries to her
face and neck. Officer Roach opined that, based on his training and experience,
during the five minutes that he was gone from the scene, a fight occurred.
Officer Roach noted “[t]he elevated emotional status of everybody on scene.
The—observing the area where the people were, it was clear that something had
happened where like I said the chair had—was way off the side of the—the
front porch. There was a purse in the yard. It was clear to me that there was a
fight there.” (Tr. p. 11). In addition, “[t]here were definitely verbal acts of
aggression while we were on scene.” (Tr. p. 27). Based on the fact that he
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1601-CR-10 | August 31, 2016 Page 3 of 7
received conflicting evidence about the incident, Officer Roach arrested
Hughes, her mother, her sister, and her girlfriend.
[7] On June 13, 2015, the State filed an Information, charging Hughes with one
Count of disorderly conduct as a Class B misdemeanor, I.C. § 35-45-1-3(a)(1)
(2014). On December 14, 2015, the trial court conducted a bench trial.
Following the State’s case-in-chief, Hughes moved for dismissal pursuant to
Trial Rule 41(B). Hughes argued that the State had failed to present any
evidence that she engaged in a fight. The trial court denied Hughes’ motion to
dismiss. During the defense’s case-in-chief, Hughes testified that there had been
a physical altercation, during which her mother had choked her and her sister
had been hitting her. Hughes also testified that she was outmatched by her
mother and her sister, who are both larger than her, so she was unable to even
defend herself. She specifically stated, “I didn’t swing, I just tried not to fall.”
(Tr. p. 38). Hughes further added that after a bystander helped remove her
mother and sister, they turned their attention to Hughes’ girlfriend and
“attacked” her. (Tr. p. 39). At the close of the evidence, the trial court found
Hughes guilty and, immediately thereafter, sentenced her to serve fourteen days
in the Marion County Jail.
[8] Hughes now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[9] Hughes claims that there is insufficient evidence to uphold her conviction for
disorderly conduct as a Class B misdemeanor. When reviewing the sufficiency
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1601-CR-10 | August 31, 2016 Page 4 of 7
of the evidence necessary to uphold a criminal conviction, our court does not
reweigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. 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. So long as “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,” we will affirm the conviction. Id.
[10] In order to convict Hughes of disorderly conduct, the State was obligated to
prove that she “recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally . . . engage[d] in fighting
or in tumultuous conduct.” I.C. § 35-45-1-3(a)(1) (2014). Here, the State relied
on the fighting prong, rather than on the tumultuous conduct prong. On
appeal, Hughes claims that the State presented no evidence that she “‘engaged
in’ fighting as a willing participant.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 9). We agree with
Hughes.
[11] According to the dictionary definition, “engage” means, in relevant part, “to
start fighting against (an opponent)”; “to enter into contest or battle with”; or
“to do or take part in something.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER, http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/engage (last visited Aug. 16, 2016). Thus, to have
engaged in fighting for the purposes of disorderly conduct, there must be
evidence that Hughes recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally participated in the
fight. Here, State relied entirely on the testimony of Officer Roach and some
photographs that were taken at the scene. This evidence establishes that Officer
Roach did not witness any physical altercation. Rather, when he returned to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1601-CR-10 | August 31, 2016 Page 5 of 7
the scene, he noticed that there was a chair in the yard, which had been on the
porch during his first call to the house, and there was a purse in the yard. There
is no indication in the record as to how or why either of these items ended up in
the yard.
[12] The photographic evidence establishes that Hughes received slight injuries to
her face and neck, as did her girlfriend. Officer Roach testified that Hughes’
mother sustained “a small abrasion above her eye,” 1 and Hughes’ sister made a
complaint of “pain.” (Tr. p. 29). However, there is no evidence to establish
who, of the four people present, inflicted which injuries upon whom. It is
entirely possible that Hughes’ mother and sister sustained their purported
injuries by fighting with Hughes’ girlfriend or as simply the result of their own
aggression against Hughes. On direct examination, Officer Roach testified that
he could not recall whether Hughes had reported that she “fought back” against
her mother and sister, and during her case-in-chief, Hughes claimed that she
was overpowered by her mother and sister and never took any “swing[s].” (Tr.
pp. 9, 38). Thus, there is no evidence before our court that establishes beyond a
reasonable doubt that Hughes actively participated in the fighting match.
[13] We do note that the trial court appears to have found that Hughes lacked
credibility, as indicated by the trial court’s comment that “Hughes testified in a
heart-felt manner when her own attorney was questioning her. On cross her
1
In our examination of the exhibits, we are unable to discern any such “abrasion.” (Tr. p. 29).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1601-CR-10 | August 31, 2016 Page 6 of 7
tone changed rather dramatically. Court finds the State has met its burden.”
(Tr. p. 45). We recognize that it is the role of the trial court, not our court, to
assess the credibility of witnesses. Even assuming that the trial court entirely
discredited Hughes’ testimony, we find that the remaining evidence—i.e.,
Officer Roach’s testimony—fails to establish that Hughes engaged in the
fighting.
CONCLUSION
[14] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the State presented insufficient
evidence to prove that Hughes engaged in fighting to support her conviction for
disorderly conduct.
[15] Reversed.
[16] Bailey, J. and Barnes, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1601-CR-10 | August 31, 2016 Page 7 of 7