Charles Samuel Richardson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 21 2020, 8:45 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Assistant Section Chief for
Criminal Appeals
Anna Elcesser
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Charles Samuel Richardson, December 21, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-1356
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Barbara Cook
Appellee-Plaintiff. Crawford, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G01-1905-F5-018069
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 1 of 10
Statement of the Case
[1] Charles Samuel Richardson appeals his convictions for domestic battery, as a
Level 5 felony; criminal confinement, as a Level 5 felony; strangulation, as a
Level 5 felony; and interference with the reporting of a crime, a Class A
misdemeanor. Richardson raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the
State presented sufficient evidence to support his convictions.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In March 2019, Richardson began dating Simone Rahier. At that time,
Richardson lived in a ResCare house with his roommate Derick Benjamin. 1
Shortly after they began dating, Rahier moved into the house with Richardson.
Then, in April, Rahier and Richardson learned that Rahier was pregnant.
[4] On May 5, Rahier was at home with Richardson, Benjamin, and one ResCare
worker. That evening, Richardson went through Rahier’s cell phone and
learned that Benjamin had contacted Rahier via Facebook. Richardson went to
Benjamin “with a lot of rage,” and the two “had a bit of an argument.” Tr. at
13. After that argument subsided, Benjamin went to his bedroom, and
Richardson and Rahier went to theirs. Rahier “verbalized” to Richardson that
she was “a little bit upset” that he had looked through her phone. Id. At that
1
Benjamin described ResCare as a program that provides housing for “[p]eople with disabilities.” Tr. at 50.
The facilities have staff members who provide supervision to the residents. See id. at 52.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 2 of 10
point, Richardson “snatched” the phone from Rahier’s hand and would not
return it. Id.
[5] Rahier then left the room and went to the ResCare worker to ask to use that
person’s phone. However, Richardson told the worker not to let Rahier use the
phone. Rahier then asked Benjamin if she could use his phone to get a ride out
of the house, but Richardson threatened Benjamin “pretty violently” if he let
Rahier use the phone, so Benjamin did not give his phone to Rahier. Id. at 15.
At that point, Rahier became “uncomfortable” and wanted to leave the house.
Id. Rahier started to pack her bags to leave, and “that’s when things began to
get violent.” Id.
[6] As Rahier attempted to pack her bags, Richardson “slapp[ed]” and “push[ed]”
her. Id. Rahier kept packing, but Richardson took her belongings out of her
bags and threw them on the floor. Richardson then got “more and more
violent.” Id. at 16. As a result, Rahier went outside to again ask the ResCare
worker to borrow a phone. Richardson followed Rahier outside and “made
threats so that [she] couldn’t use anybody’s phone.” Id.
[7] Rahier returned to the house, and the violence “became a little bit more
intense,” and he started “beating” her. Id. at 19. Throughout the night,
Richardson “slapped,” “pushed”, “threatened”, and “harassed” Rahier. Id. at
21. “Several times” throughout the night, Rahier attempted to leave, but
Richardson “blocked” the door and would not let her exit. Id. at 19. Rahier
was “sick of” being beaten, so she decided to go to bed and leave the next
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 3 of 10
morning while Richardson was at work. Id. at 20. Once she was in bed,
Richardson returned the phone to Rahier, and Rahier texted her grandmother
for help. Richardson then “snatched” the phone back, saw the message to
Rahier’s grandmother, and sent another message to Rahier’s grandmother
saying that things were fine. Id. at 21.
[8] Richardson then began to hit Rahier with a “closed fist.” Id. at 22. Rahier left
the bedroom and went to the living room to look for the ResCare worker. The
worker was gone, so Rahier asked Benjamin for help. Richardson “threatened”
Benjamin “pretty violently,” so Benjamin did not help Rahier. Id. Richardson
then hit Rahier in the head with a closed fist “[t]oo many [times] to remember.”
Id.
[9] After a “long time” of getting hit in the living room, Rahier tried to walk away.
Id. at 23. Richardson followed her and punched her in the stomach two or
three times. Rahier then attempted “multiple times” to use the fax machine to
call 9-1-1. Id. at 24. But “every time” Rahier would dial, Richardson would
“wait for it to ring” then push the “end button.” Id. It was “like a game” to
Richardson. Id. Richardson then threw Rahier to the ground and continued to
punch her.
[10] At some point, Richardson walked away “for a second,” and Rahier went to
the kitchen to get a knife. Id. at 24. When Richardson returned, she asked him
to stop hitting her. But Richardson hit her again, so she “stabbed” him in the
shoulder. Id. at 25. Richardson then told Benjamin to call 9-1-1, and Benjamin
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 4 of 10
complied. After Benjamin called 9-1-1, “the worst few minutes of the beating”
occurred. Id. at 27. Richardson pushed Rahier to the floor and began
“wailing” on her head with a closed fist. Id. Richardson also put his hands
around Rahier’s neck and “squeez[ed] hard.” Id. at 38. Rahier told Richardson
that she could not breathe, but Richardson responded that he “d[idn’t] care.”
Id. at 31. When the police arrived, Richardson walked away, and Rahier ran
outside.
[11] The State charged Richardson with domestic battery, as a Level 5 felony (Count
1); battery, as a Level 5 felony (Count 2); criminal confinement, as a Level 5
felony (Count 3); strangulation, as a Level 5 felony (Count 4); domestic battery,
as a Class A misdemeanor (Count 5); battery, as a Class A misdemeanor
(Count 6); intimidation, as a Level 6 felony (Count 7); and interference with the
reporting of a crime, a Class A misdemeanor (Count 8).
[12] During the ensuing bench trial, Rahier testified about the events that had
occurred. In addition, Benjamin testified that, on that night, he had heard
“[f]ighting” between Rahier and Richardson. Id. at 53. He also testified that
neither he nor the ResCare worker had allowed Rahier to use their phones that
night because Richardson had told them not to. Richardson then testified that
Rahier had instigated the fight and that he had acted in self-defense. At the
conclusion of the trial, the court entered judgment of conviction against
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 5 of 10
Richardson on Counts 1, 3, 4, and 8. 2 The court then sentenced Richardson to
an aggregate term of four years in the Department of Correction. This appeal
ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[13] Richardson asserts that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
convictions. Our standard of review on a claim of insufficient evidence is well
settled:
For a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we look only at the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the
verdict. Drane v. State, 687 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do
not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence.
We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder
could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. Id.
Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).
Self-Defense
[14] On appeal, Richardson first asserts that the State failed to present sufficient
evidence to rebut his claims of self-defense as they relate to his convictions for
domestic battery, as a Level 5 felony, and strangulation, as a Level 5 felony.
“‘A valid claim of defense of oneself or another person is legal justification for
2
The court found Richardson guilty of Counts 2, 5, and 6 but did not enter a judgment of conviction due to
double jeopardy concerns. The court found him not guilty of Count 7.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 6 of 10
an otherwise criminal act.’” Simpson v. State, 915 N.E.2d 511, 514 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2009) (quoting Hobson v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1118, 1121 (Ind. Ct. App.
2003)). To prevail on a claim of self-defense, the defendant must show that he
was in a place where he had a right to be; did not provoke, instigate, or
participate willingly in the violence; and had a reasonable fear of death or great
bodily harm. See id.
[15] When a claim of self-defense is raised and finds support in the evidence, “the
State has the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id. The State may meet its burden by either rebutting the
defense directly or by relying on the sufficiency of the evidence in its case-in-
chief. Id. Whether the State has met its burden is a question for the trier of
fact. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind. 1999). We review a challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut such defenses using the same standard as
for any claim of insufficient evidence. Simpson, 915 N.E.2d at 514.
[16] Here, Richardson asserts that he was legally justified in fighting Rahier because
he “was in his own home where he had a right to be and[,] from his own
testimony, was not the initial aggressor[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 15. He further
contends that, while Rahier claimed in her testimony that she was the victim,
her version of events “is fraught with inconsistencies and contradictory
descriptions of the entire scenario.” Id. However, Richardson’s argument is
simply a request for this Court to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility
of witnesses, which we cannot do. The evidence most favorable to the trial
court’s judgment demonstrates that Richardson initiated the altercation, choked
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 7 of 10
Rahier and repeatedly hit her in the head and stomach, and continued fighting
her even as she attempted to walk away. That evidence is sufficient to show
that Richardson provoked, instigated, and willingly participated in the fight.
Accordingly, the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Richardson’s
claims of self-defense. We affirm Richardson’s convictions for domestic
battery, as a Level 5 felony, and strangulation, as a Level 5 felony.
Criminal Confinement
[17] Richardson next contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to
support his conviction for criminal confinement. To convict Richardson of
criminal confinement, as a Level 5 felony, the State was required to prove that
he had knowingly or intentionally confined Rahier without her consent and that
the confinement resulted in bodily injury to Rahier. See Ind. Code § 35-42-3-
3(b)(1) (2020). On appeal, Richardson maintains that the State presented
insufficient evidence to support that conviction because Rahier’s testimony that
she was confined contains numerous “inconsistencies.” Appellant’s Br. at 17.
In addition, he asserts that he did not confine Rahier because Rahier twice left
the house on the night of the offense—once to speak to the ResCare worker
outside and once when the officers arrived. Accordingly, he maintains that
Rahier “could leave and, in fact, did leave the house” such that she was not
confined. Id.
[18] Richardson’s arguments on appeal are again an improper request that we
reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses. The evidence
most favorable to the judgment demonstrates that Rahier attempted to leave the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 8 of 10
house “[s]everal times” throughout the night, but that Richardson repeatedly
“blocked” the door. Tr. at 19. And the evidence demonstrates that Rahier
sustained several injuries while confined. As such, the State presented sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that Richardson confined Rahier without her consent.
We affirm his conviction for criminal confinement, as a Level 5 felony.
Interference with the Reporting of a Crime
[19] Finally, Richardson contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to
support his conviction on Count 8. To prove that Richardson interfered with
the reporting of a crime, the State was required to show that Richardson, with
the intent to commit, conceal, or aid in the commission of a crime, knowingly
or intentionally interfered with or prevented Rahier from using a 9-1-1
emergency telephone system. See I.C. § 35-45-2-5(1).
[20] Richardson acknowledges that he hung up the fax machine when Rahier
attempted to call 9-1-1. But he contends that the State failed to present
sufficient evidence to support his conviction because, “[a]ccording to [him],”
the fax machine that Rahier used to attempt to call 9-1-1 can only send faxes.
Appellant’s Br. at 18. But, yet again, his argument on appeal is an improper
request for us to give more weight to his testimony than to Rahier’s. The
evidence most favorable to the trial court’s judgment demonstrates that
Richardson took Rahier’s phone from her and prohibited Rahier from using
either the ResCare worker’s or Benjamin’s phones such that she was unable to
use a phone to call for help. And Rahier testified that she tried “multiple times”
to use the fax machine to call 9-1-1 but that, “every time,” Richardson would
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 9 of 10
wait for it to ring and “hit the end button[.]” Tr. at 23-24. That evidence
supports a reasonable inference that Richardson interfered with or prevented
Rahier from calling 9-1-1. The State presented sufficient evidence to support his
conviction for interference with the reporting of a crime.
[21] In sum, we affirm Richardson’s convictions.
[22] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 10 of 10