Tina Pace v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 29 2017, 10:36 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
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
Elizabeth M. Littlejohn
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Tina Pace, June 29, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1701-CR-153
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David Certo, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. The Honorable David Hooper,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G12-1602-CM-7290
Barnes, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1701-CR-153 | June 29, 2017 Page 1 of 5
[1] Tina Pace appeals her conviction for Class B misdemeanor battery. We affirm.
Issue
[2] The sole issue on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to support a
conviction for Class B misdemeanor battery.
Facts
[3] On February 23, 2016, Pace was charged with Class A misdemeanor battery
resulting in bodily injury. A bench trial was held on December 28, 2016.
During the trial, Pace moved for an involuntary dismissal of the Count I Class
A misdemeanor battery charge.1 The trial court granted this motion, and the
State proceeded on the lesser-included offense of Class B misdemeanor battery.
During the trial, Officer Cameron Taylor testified that he was dispatched to
North Arsenal Avenue, in Indianapolis, to respond to a domestic disturbance
between a male and a female. Officer Taylor stated that when he arrived Pace
was standing outside of the house because she had decided to leave in an effort
to avoid any further conflict. He testified that he saw an older male standing in
the crack of the front doorway.2 Officer Taylor testified that his car was parked
about ten to twelve feet away from the front door and that his view of the
incident was unobstructed. Officer Taylor then stated, “I saw [Pace] throw a
bowl of food on the ground and rip the door open and then lower her shoulder
1
The trial court determined that, without the victim’s testimony, the State could not proceed with Class A
misdemeanor battery.
2
Officer Taylor later identified that man as W.S., Pace’s uncle.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1701-CR-153 | June 29, 2017 Page 2 of 5
into the elderly male and force him to the ground.” Tr. p. 7. When asked to
describe the older male, Officer Taylor stated that, “[W.S.] was about a sixty-
five year old male, disabled to a wheelchair, could hardly speak, [and was] very
frail in nature.” Id. at 8. Officer Taylor also testified that, “[Pace] put all of her
weight into [W.S.], into his body, in front of me, I witnessed that.” Id. at 16.
When asked whether he thought the incident could have occurred accidentally,
Officer Taylor stated, “No.” Id.
[4] Pace testified that the incident occurred at her grandparents’ house, where both
she and W.S. were living at the time. Pace stated that on the day the incident
occurred, “[she] came down to explain to the police what was going on with me
and my uncle. He’s made all kinds of false reports. . . .And me and him had
got into a little argument about I was paying for my room and I was being
disturbed by his company.” Id. at 26. Pace testified that she wanted to get her
purse before leaving the house, but W.S. refused to open the door. Pace stated
that she was attempting to pull the door open and because W.S. was
handicapped, “he couldn’t get his balance and that’s how he fell.” Id. at 28.
[5] The trial court found Pace guilty of Class B misdemeanor battery and sentenced
Pace to one-hundred and eighty days all suspended to probation. The trial
court also ordered Pace to complete thirty-two hours of community service
work and to have no further contact with W.S. Pace now appeals.
Analysis
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1701-CR-153 | June 29, 2017 Page 3 of 5
[6] Pace argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for Class
B misdemeanor battery because she contends, “the incident happened by either
purely accidental means or by [W.S’s] own action,” and because her testimony
regarding the incident conflicted with that of Officer Taylor’s. Appellant’s Br.
p. 7. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, we neither reweigh the
evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Milam v. State, 14 N.E.3d 879,
881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). If there is sufficient evidence of probative value to
support the conclusion of the trier of fact, then the judgment will not be
disturbed. Id. This court considers only the evidence most favorable to the
judgment and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. “Reversal is
appropriate only where reasonable persons would not be able to form inferences
as to each material element of the offense.” Id.[7] At the time Pace was convicted, Indiana Code Section 35-42-2-1(b)(1) required
the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pace knowingly or
intentionally touched W.S. in a “rude, insolent, or angry manner.” The facts
most favorable to the trial court’s ruling showed that, Pace forcefully opened a
door, lowered her shoulder and, using all her weight, pushed W.S., knocking
him to the ground. Officer Taylor testified that the force used was similar to a
“pendulum swing.” Tr. p. 16. The trial court was entitled to weigh the
evidence presented, and was under no obligation to credit Pace’s testimony,
over Officer Taylor’s. See McCullough v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1135, 1139 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2013) trans. denied. Based on the evidence presented, a reasonable trier of
fact could conclude Pace committed battery when she pushed W.S. Pace’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1701-CR-153 | June 29, 2017 Page 4 of 5
argument invites this court to reweigh the evidence presented, which we cannot
do.
Conclusion
[8] The State presented sufficient evidence to sustain Pace’s conviction for Class B
misdemeanor battery. We affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1701-CR-153 | June 29, 2017 Page 5 of 5