Teresa Ortiz v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jul 26 2018, 6:29 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
Ruth A. Johnson Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Lee M. Stoy, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Teresa Ortiz, July 26, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-63
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Annie Christ,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
The Honorable Travis G. Sandifur,
Commissioner
Trial Court Cause No.
49G24-1608-F6-30019
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-63| July 26, 2018 Page 1 of 6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Teresa Ortiz (Ortiz), appeals her conviction for battery, a
Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(b)(1).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Ortiz raises one issue, which we restate as: Whether the evidence was sufficient
to sustain her conviction for battery and rebut her claim of self-defense.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On May 29, 2015, Margaret Davis (Davis) contacted Ortiz to set up an
appointment to get her hair done. During the phone call, they agreed on a price
of $50. Davis and Ortiz had been friends for the past twenty-three years and
Ortiz had done Davis’ hair several times before. While Ortiz was fixing Davis’
hair, Ortiz was talking on the phone with another individual about how if Davis
had gone to a salon she would be charged almost $200. Davis felt that “the
mood had changed.” (Transcript p. 23). Eventually, another person came to
Ortiz’ apartment to get her eyebrows arched. When the other individual
arrived, Ortiz stopped working on Davis’ hair after putting product in her hair
that needed to sit for the hair to straighten.
[5] While Davis was waiting for Ortiz to finish arching the other woman’s
eyebrows, she felt her scalp starting to burn and tingle. Davis let Ortiz know
“that the perm was starting to burn [and it was] probably time to [] rise [sic] the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-63| July 26, 2018 Page 2 of 6
relaxer out.” (Tr. p. 27). Ortiz continued to talk with the other individual and
when she finally came over, she “was still kind of upset, talking about the
price.” (Tr. p. 27). After Ortiz rinsed the perm product out of Davis’ hair,
Davis could “tell that [her hair] was over-processed;” instead of being silky, her
hair felt brittle. (Tr. p. 27). “Just to appease” Ortiz, Davis decided to “pay her
half her money” for the work Ortiz had already done. (Tr. p. 28). Davis
gathered her “black bag” in which she “had [her] hair” extensions and told
Ortiz that she was going to get money and would be right back. (Tr. p. 29).
About a second or two later, Ortiz started to follow Davis. When they reached
the parking lot, Ortiz snatched the hair extensions out of Davis’ bag and said,
“Naw, I’m a take this until you come back.” (Tr. p. 30). However, Davis
attempted to grab her hair extensions back from Ortiz and Ortiz hit Davis “in
the middle of [her] forehead,” and hit her “several times” with Ortiz’ phone.
(Tr. p. 33). “[O]ne thang [sic] lead to another. It was just one big altercation.”
(Tr. p. 33). Davis tried to defend herself. Eventually, Ortiz’ sons separated the
two women and when Davis arrived home, she reported the incident to the
police.
[6] On August 5, 2016, the State filed an Information, charging Ortiz with battery
as a Level 6 felony. On September 12, 2017, a jury trial was conducted.
During trial, Ortiz testified that Davis started to dispute the price for the hair
appointment and refused to pay her anything at all. When Davis gathered her
bag and walked to the parking lot, Ortiz took the hair from Davis’ bag to keep it
until Davis paid her. Davis grabbed “the hair, bent [Ortiz’] finger and broke it
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-63| July 26, 2018 Page 3 of 6
trying to take the hair out of [Ortiz’] hand.” (Tr. p. 87). Ortiz told the jury that
Davis had her “pinned to the wall and [Ortiz] hit her with the phone to get
Davis off her because [] she was smashing the breath out of” Ortiz. (Tr. p. 87).
At the close of the evidence, the jury returned a guilty verdict. On December
14, 2017, the trial court held a sentencing hearing, at which time the trial court
entered judgment of conviction for battery as a Class A misdemeanor and
sentenced Ortiz to four days in the Marion County Jail.
[7] Ortiz now appeals. Additional facts will be provided if necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[8] Ortiz contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain her
conviction and to rebut her claim of self-defense. When a defendant challenges
the State’s sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense, the
standard of review remains the same as for any sufficiency of the evidence
claim. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 699 (Ind. 1999). When reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence needed to support a criminal conviction, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d
1005, 1005 (Ind. 2009). “We consider only the evidence supporting the
judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such
evidence.” Id. We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value
such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence need not be so
overwhelming as to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Drane
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-63| July 26, 2018 Page 4 of 6
v. Scott, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007). The jury, as the trier of fact, is
entitled to determine which version of the incident to credit and is the sole
judge of the effect that any discrepancies or contradictions might have on the
outcome of the case. Scott v. State, 867 N.E.2d 690, 695 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007),
trans. denied; Murray v. State, 761 N.E.2d 406, 409 (Ind. 2002).
[9] To convict Ortiz of battery as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was required to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Ortiz knowingly or intentionally
touched Davis in a rude, insolent, or angry manner and that such touching
resulted in bodily injury. See I.C. § 35-42-2-1(b)(1). Ortiz does not argue that
the State failed to prove any of the requisite statutory elements of the battery
charge; rather, she contends that the State failed to disprove her claim of self-
defense.
[10] Self-defense is a legal justification for what would otherwise be a criminal act.
Tharpe v. State, 955 N.E.2d 836, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. To
prevail on a claim of self-defense, Ortiz must present evidence that she: (1) was
in a place she had a right to be, (2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate
willingly in the violence, and (3) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily
harm.” Id. When a defendant claims he or she acted in self-defense, the State
has the burden to disprove at least one of these elements beyond a reasonable
doubt. See id. The State may meet this burden by rebutting the defense directly,
by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by simply
relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief. See Miller, 720 N.E.2d at
700.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-63| July 26, 2018 Page 5 of 6
[11] In support of her argument, Ortiz relies on her own testimony which hinges on
whether Davis had a motive to lie and thus should not be found credible by the
jury. However, the situation before us presents a classic ‘he said – she said’
scenario in which we only have two witnesses—Ortiz and Davis—who describe
two completely different events. Both Davis and Ortiz testified and the jury
heard each woman’s narrative of the altercation. Based on this evidence, the
jury choose to believe one over the other. “It is for the trier of fact to resolve
conflicts in the evidence and to decide which witnesses to believe or disbelieve.”
Ferrell v. State, 746 N.E.2d 48, 51 (Ind. 2001). By finding Ortiz guilty after
hearing all the evidence and having been instructed on self-defense, the jury
clearly rejected Ortiz’ version and credited Davis’. We decline to disturb the
jury’s verdict.
CONCLUSION
[12] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the State presented sufficient evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt to support Ortiz’ conviction and to rebut her claim
of self-defense.
Affirmed.
May, J. and Mathias, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-63| July 26, 2018 Page 6 of 6