J.Z. v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
FILED
Sep 11 2012, 9:26 am
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
COREY L. SCOTT GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.Z., )
)
Appellant-Respondent, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1202-JV-132
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Petitioner. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Marilyn A. Moores, Judge
The Honorable Scott B. Stowers, Magistrate
Cause No. 49D09-1111-JD-3108
September 11, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NAJAM, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
J.Z. appeals his adjudication as a delinquent child for having committed battery, as
a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. J.Z. raises a single issue for our
review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support J.Z.’s
adjudication. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 9, 2011, during a school bus ride home, several students began
“play fighting.” Transcript at 6. One student yelled out, “jump the white kid,” and
several students then began hitting twelve-year-old J.N., who was not participating in the
play fighting. Id. Then, “after that was done,” J.Z., also twelve years old, continued to
“slap[ J.N.] in the face repeatedly and telling [J.N.] to shut up.” Id. J.Z.’s contact caused
J.N. pain.
On November 28, 2011, the State alleged J.Z. to be a delinquent child for having
committed battery, as a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. At the
subsequent fact-finding hearing, J.Z. acknowledged that he had slapped J.N. several times
during the incident in question. Thereafter, the juvenile court adjudicated J.Z. as a
delinquent child. The court then discharged J.Z. This appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
On appeal, J.Z. asserts that the State did not support his adjudication as a
delinquent child with sufficient evidence. When we review the sufficiency of the
evidence to support a delinquency adjudication, we consider only the probative evidence
and reasonable inferences supporting the adjudication. D.W. v. State, 903 N.E.2d 966,
2
968 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. We do not assess witness credibility or reweigh
the evidence. Id. We consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the juvenile
court’s ruling. R.H. v. State, 916 N.E.2d 260, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Drane v.
State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007)), trans. denied. We will affirm the
adjudication unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the offense proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It is not necessary that the evidence overcome every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may
reasonably be drawn from it to support the adjudication. Id.To show that J.Z. committed battery as a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an
adult, the State had to show that J.Z. knowingly or intentionally touched J.N. in a rude,
insolent, or angry manner, and that that touching resulted in bodily injury to J.N. Ind.
Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(1)(A). “Bodily injury” includes “physical pain.” I.C. § 35-31.5-2-
29.
J.Z.’s argument on appeal is that the students on the bus were engaged in
horseplay and only play fighting, without actually contacting one another, and that “boys
[were] being boys.” Appellant’s Br. at 4. But the State’s evidence plainly shows that
J.Z. committed battery as a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. J.N. testified
that J.Z. physically struck him in the face “repeatedly,” and that J.Z.’s contact caused J.N.
pain. Transcript at 6. J.N. further testified that he was not a participant in the play
fighting, and that J.Z.’s contact occurred after several other kids had stopped “jump[ing]”
J.N. Id. And J.Z. testified that he had slapped J.N. several times during the incident in
3
question. J.Z.’s arguments on appeal are merely requests for this court to reweigh the
evidence, which we will not do. The juvenile court’s judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
KIRSCH, J., and MAY, J., concur.
4