James Baldwin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 16 2016, 9:30 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.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Craig A. Dechert Gregory F. Zoeller
Kokomo, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Katherine Modesitt Cooper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
James Baldwin, February 16, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
34A02-1507-CR-865
v. Appeal from the Howard Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable William C.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Menges, Jr., Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
34D01-1409-CM-703
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1507-CR-865 | February 16, 2016 Page 1 of 8
Statement of the Case
[1] Appellant/Defendant, James Baldwin (“Baldwin”), appeals his conviction for
Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.1 He argues that there was insufficient
evidence to support his conviction because there was no evidence that he
intentionally touched his victim in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. We
conclude that there was sufficient evidence that Baldwin touched his victim in a
rude, insolent, or angry manner, and we affirm his conviction.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Baldwin of Class
A misdemeanor domestic battery.
Facts
[3] In August of 2014, Melissa Rust (“Melissa”) lived in Howard County in a
house with Baldwin, her boyfriend of five years, and Danielle Rust
(“Danielle”), her twenty-one-year-old daughter. On the night of August 17,
2014, Melissa had a stroke and was admitted to the hospital. Danielle, who
was Melissa’s power of attorney, spoke with Baldwin after the stroke. He told
her, “I think I know what probably caused it. A couple of nights ago we were
fighting, arguing[,] and I grabbed her and I pushed her on the bed[.] [H]er head
hit the headboard[,] and her neck snapped forward.” (Tr. 57). When he made
1
IND. CODE § 35-42-2-1.3(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1507-CR-865 | February 16, 2016 Page 2 of 8
this statement, he made “a motion as if he [were] pushing her” and, to
Danielle, “just didn’t seem like he cared” or “had [] remorse.” (Tr. 58).
Danielle had previously witnessed him arguing with Melissa “several times.”
(Tr. 62).
[4] As Melissa’s power of attorney, Danielle filed a complaint with the Kokomo
Police Department regarding Baldwin. Officer Eric Fogg (“Officer Fogg”)
investigated the complaint. He spoke with Melissa in the hospital, and she told
him that she did not remember anything from the night of her stroke. Officer
Fogg also talked to Danielle, and she told him that she believed that Baldwin
had been the cause of her mother’s stroke, although she had not been present
when the incident happened.
[5] Subsequently, on September 3, 2014, Officer Fogg questioned Baldwin at the
house he shared with Melissa. During this questioning, which Officer Fogg
recorded, the officer asked Baldwin whether he and Melissa had had any
altercations prior to her stroke. Initially, Baldwin said that their last altercation
had taken place four and a half months previously. However, he later said that
they had argued the night before Melissa’s stroke. According to Baldwin,
Melissa had been intoxicated and upset with him, and she had “struck him
about the head and face.” (Tr. 50). Then, when he had tried to walk away and
call the police, she had ripped the phone cord out of the wall. He told the officer
that she had then started “striking him about the head and face[,] so he “grabbed
her by the arms.” (Tr. 50). At that time, according to Baldwin, she
had “put her foot on his chest and pushed off.” (Tr. 51). “[A]s a result of doing
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1507-CR-865 | February 16, 2016 Page 3 of 8
that, [she had] hit her head on the headboard.” (Tr. 78). Baldwin said that,
after their fight, Melissa had complained of head pain.
[6] On September 8, 2014, the State charged Baldwin with Class A misdemeanor
domestic battery.2 Baldwin was released from custody pending trial but was
ordered to have no contact with Melissa. The Sheriff’s Department served
Baldwin with the no contact order on October 27, 2014.
[7] Thereafter, on February 9, 2015, Melissa met with Donald Whitehead
(“Whitehead”), the investigator for the Howard County Prosecutor, to provide
him with a statement regarding her contact with Baldwin. During this
encounter, which Whitehead recorded, Melissa denied that her stroke had been
related to Baldwin. However, Whitehead asked her if Baldwin had ever hurt
her or caused her pain, and she responded “yes.” (Tr. 45).
[8] Subsequently, the trial court held a bench trial on May 20, 2015. At trial,
Melissa claimed that her last altercation with Baldwin had occurred four-and-a-
half to five months before her stroke. She said that, during that altercation, she
had “[held] on [to] his arms and he [had held] on to her [wrist].” (Tr. 24).
Then, she had “kicked off his chest and [her] head [had] hit the headboard.”
(Tr. 24). When asked who had initiated the altercation, she said that it had
been “kind of equal.” (Tr. 89). She also denied that anything had happened to
her the day or night before she had had her stroke. However, she admitted that
2
The charging information is not a part of the record.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1507-CR-865 | February 16, 2016 Page 4 of 8
Baldwin “like[d] to see how mad he [could] get [her] [and] how much [she
could] take.” (Tr. 90).
[9] Also at trial, the State introduced Facebook messages that Melissa had sent to a
person with the username “Dayle Shutt.”3 (State’s Ex. 5). In the messages, she
had stated: “I remember that very well too[.] [Y]ou hur[t] me badly[.] I
thought I wa[s] going to die[.] [I] believe that [] probably was when my carotid
artery got torn[.] [T]hat wa[s] 5 months before my stroke[.]” (State’s Ex. 5).
Melissa had also written: “[Y]ou should have just finished me off when you
were slamming my head.” (State’s Ex. 5). The user name Dayle had replied:
“I never slammed your head on anything. I can’t believe you just said that.”
(State’s Ex. 5). Then, Melissa had responded: “on the headboard repeatedly
[]while you were [h]olding onto my face.” (State’s Ex. 5). Melissa had also
sent the following messages to Dayle:
I must not have ever been important to you[.] [T]hat should
have been when I ended it[.] I thought you were going to kill
me. [I was] tired had drank smoke and took repeated blows to
the head[.] I still have a tender sore spot on the back of my head
from that[.] [I]t hasn’t gone away after all of these months.
* * *
[WTF] are you trying to do to me? You must forget you did
attack me because you didn’t like something I said about another
female[.]
* * *
3
It is not clear from the record when these Facebook messages were sent.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1507-CR-865 | February 16, 2016 Page 5 of 8
You hurt me horribly from repeatedly hitting my head[.] I was
so scared[.] As soon a[s] I see you have seen this message[,] I’m
getting rid of it[.] I will never tell anyone about that night ever.
(State’s Ex. 5) (grammar mistakes in original). When the State questioned
Melissa about the messages at trial, she admitted that the person she had been
messaging had been Baldwin, although she also claimed that there was a
possibility it had not always been him.
[10] At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court found Baldwin guilty of Class
A misdemeanor domestic battery and sentenced him to 365 days with 339 days
suspended to probation and credit for thirteen (13) actual days served. Baldwin
now appeals.
Decision
[11] On appeal, Baldwin argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he
committed domestic battery because Melissa testified that he did not
intentionally hurt her and because she testified that she was “kind of equal” to
Baldwin in initiating the fight. (Tr. 89). Accordingly, he asserts that he did not
touch her in a rude, insolent, or angry manner as required for the elements of
the offense.4
4
Although Baldwin notes Melissa’s testimony that he did not intentionally hurt her, he does not argue that
there was insufficient evidence of his intent.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1507-CR-865 | February 16, 2016 Page 6 of 8
[12] The standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is that this Court
should only reverse a conviction when reasonable persons would not be able to
form inferences as to each material element of the offense. Perez v. State, 872
N.E.2d 208, 212-13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. We do not reweigh
evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. at 213. In addition, we only
consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable
inferences stemming from that evidence. Id.
[13] In order to convict Baldwin of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, the State
had to prove that he “knowingly or intentionally touch[ed] an individual who .
. . is or was living as if a spouse of the other person . . . in a rude, insolent, or
angry manner that results in bodily injury to the person.” I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3(a).
[14] Baldwin asserts that the State did not prove that he touched Melissa in a “rude,
insolent, or angry manner.” I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3(a). However, Danielle testified
that Baldwin had told her: “A couple of nights ago we were fighting, arguing[,]
and I grabbed her and I pushed her on the bed[.] [H]er head hit the
headboard[,] and her neck snapped forward.” (Tr. 57). The State also admitted
several Facebook messages in which Melissa had written Baldwin and talked
about him attacking her, hurting her, and “slamming [her] head.” (State’s Ex.
5). Accordingly, we conclude that the State produced sufficient evidence to
support Baldwin’s domestic battery conviction. His argument is a request for us
to reweigh the evidence, which we may not do. Perez, 872 N.E.2d at 213.
[15] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1507-CR-865 | February 16, 2016 Page 7 of 8
Baker, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1507-CR-865 | February 16, 2016 Page 8 of 8