Vickie Beasley 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 Apr 14 2020, 9:28 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Scott H. Duerring Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General
Courtney Staton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Vickie Beasley, April 14, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2663
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Paul E. Singleton,
Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
71D06-1907-CM-2592
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2663 | April 14, 2020 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Vickie Beasley appeals her conviction, following a bench trial, for class B
misdemeanor battery. She contends that the State presented insufficient
evidence to support her conviction. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On June 12, 2019, Taquanya Suggs was working the front desk at University
Meadows Family Dentistry in Mishawaka. The office was closed to patients
that day because no doctors were available to cover appointments; however,
Suggs and other staff members were at the office performing administrative
duties.
[3] That day, Beasley entered the office with her grandchildren. Suggs informed
Beasley that the grandchildren’s appointments had been cancelled and indicated
that she had personally spoken with Beasley the day before to cancel those
appointments. Beasley became “hostile” and started “cussing at” Suggs and
calling her “a liar.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 14-15. Beasley then grabbed the pen holder
and envelope holder on the front of Suggs’s desk and threw them at Suggs and
an extern who was seated nearby. Suggs was able to “dodge[]” the envelope
holder, but the pen holder “hit [her] physically.” Id. at 16. Beasley told Suggs
to “stop lying” and left the office. Id. at 17.
[4] The State charged Beasley with class A misdemeanor battery. A bench trial
was held on November 6, 2019. At the start of trial, the State made an oral
motion to add a charge for class B misdemeanor battery, and to dismiss the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2663 | April 14, 2020 Page 2 of 4
class A misdemeanor charge. The trial court granted the motion. Trial
proceeded, at the conclusion of which the court found Beasley guilty of class B
misdemeanor battery. The court imposed no sentence other than ordering
Beasley to pay court costs.1 This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Beasley challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction.
When reviewing a sufficiency claim, we consider only the probative evidence
and the reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Keith v. State, 127
N.E.3d 1221, 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “It is not our role as an appellate court
to assess witness credibility or to weigh the evidence.” Id. “We will affirm the
conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime
proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.[6] To convict Beasley of class B misdemeanor battery, the State was required to
prove that she knowingly or intentionally touched Suggs in a rude, insolent, or
angry manner. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c). Beasley challenges only the State’s
proof that she touched Suggs knowingly.
[7] A person engages in conduct “knowingly” if, when she engages in the conduct,
she is aware of a high probability that she is doing so. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b).
“Because knowledge is a mental state of the actor, it may be proved by
1
The court stayed collection of the court costs until November 6, 2020. Appealed Order at 2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2663 | April 14, 2020 Page 3 of 4
circumstantial evidence and inferred from the circumstances and facts of each
case.” Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110, 1113 (Ind. 2012). In other words,
“[i]ntent can be inferred from a defendant’s conduct and the natural and usual
sequence to which such conduct logically and reasonably points.” Phipps v.
State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195-96 (Ind. 2018) (citation omitted).
[8] Here, Suggs testified that Beasley became hostile and then grabbed items from
the desk and threw them at her. One of the items struck Suggs. In assessing
Beasley’s conduct, and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct
points, a reasonable trier of fact could infer that Beasley was aware of a high
probability that she would strike Suggs upon throwing the items. Beasley’s
suggestions to the contrary are simply requests for this Court to reweigh the
evidence and reassess witness credibility on appeal, and we will not. The State
presented sufficient evidence to support Beasley’s conviction for class B
misdemeanor battery.
[9] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2663 | April 14, 2020 Page 4 of 4