Stephen Schauf v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Feb 26 2015, 9:21 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ruth Johnson Gregory F. Zoeller
Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Eric P. Babbs
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Stephen Schauf, February 26, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
49A02-1406-CR-444
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
Cause No. 49F07-1312-CM-80479
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff. The Honorable David Cook, Judge
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1406-CR-444 |February 26, 2015 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Stephen Schauf appeals his conviction for Class B misdemeanor battery. We
affirm.
Issue
[2] The sole issue before us is whether there is sufficient evidence to support
Schauf’s conviction.
Facts
[3] The evidence most favorable to the conviction is that on December 21, 2013,
Joesette Dodson was renting a room at a home in Indianapolis and her
daughter, Ashley Dodson, and grandchildren rented another room. Schauf also
lived at the home. At about 3 a.m., Schauf came home and began baking in the
home’s kitchen. Schauf was making noise with pots and pans that was
disturbing Joesette and the two got into an argument. Eventually, Joesette
went back to her room until about seven or eight in the morning. When
Joesette woke up, her grandchildren were in the living room watching
television, and Schauf was still baking in the kitchen without a shirt on.
Joesette began arguing with Schauf again over the remote control to the
television and about the way Schauf was dressed in front of young children. At
some point, Joesette knocked a bowl of flour off the kitchen counter. Schauf
then grabbed Joesette’s arm and pushed her up against a wall. Ashley
witnessed the incident.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1406-CR-444 |February 26, 2015 Page 2 of 5
[4] Joesette called the police, and Officer Chris Gardner of the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department arrived on the scene. He took photographs of
a slight laceration on Joesette’s arm. After speaking with Joesette, Schauf, and
Ashley, Officer Gardner decided to arrest Schauf for battery.
[5] The State charged Schauf with Class B misdemeanor battery. At Schauf’s
bench trial Officer Gardner, without objection, related statements Ashley had
made to him regarding the incident and testified that Ashley’s statements had
convinced him to arrest Schauf for battery. At the conclusion of trial, the trial
court stated, “the court is persuaded by the independent . . . witness, Ashley
Dodson and more particularly . . . the . . . officer on the scene. Uh, that was
Officer Gardner. Um, and gets considerable weight and credibility to his
observations and testimony.” Tr. p. 57. The trial court then found Schauf
guilty as charged and sentenced him accordingly. Schauf now appeals.
Analysis
[6] When we review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we
must examine only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom
that support the conviction. Lock v. State, 971 N.E.2d 71, 74 (Ind. 2012). We
will neither assess witness credibility nor reweigh the evidence. Id. We will
affirm a conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could have found the
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence
does not have to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, so long as
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1406-CR-444 |February 26, 2015 Page 3 of 5
an inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence to support the
conviction. Id.
[7] In order to convict Schauf of Class B misdemeanor battery, the State was
required to prove that he touched Joesette “in a rude, insolent, or angry manner
. . . .” Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a) (2013). At trial, both Joesette and Ashley
testified that Schauf grabbed Joesette’s arm and pushed her into a wall during
an argument. Although Schauf denied having done so, we cannot reweigh the
evidence or judge witness credibility on appeal. The testimony of Joesette and
Ashley is sufficient to support Schauf’s conviction.
[8] Schauf contends the trial court erred when it said that it gave “considerable
weight and credibility” to Officer Gardner’s testimony, given that he did not
personally observe the incident. Tr. p. 57. We first observe that no objection
was made to Officer Gardner’s testimony relating Ashley’s statements to him,
as well as his testimony that he found Ashley’s statements to be “condemning
toward Mr. Schauf” and that they convinced him to arrest Schauf for battery.
Id. at 38. There being no objection to this testimony, the trial court was not
precluded from considering it in assessing Schauf’s guilt. See Marcum v. State,
725 N.E.2d 852, 863 (Ind. 2000) (holding that even otherwise inadmissible
evidence may be considered by a factfinder if there is no objection to its
introduction).
[9] Moreover, a trial court in a criminal bench trial is not required to make either
findings of fact or conclusions thereon. Dozier v. State, 709 N.E.2d 27, 30 (Ind.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1406-CR-444 |February 26, 2015 Page 4 of 5
Ct. App. 1999). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence following a bench
trial, “the focus of our inquiry is not upon the remarks the trial court makes in a
bench trial after having reached the conclusion that a defendant is guilty.” Id.
Instead, we focus solely upon “whether the evidence presented to the trial court
as fact-finder was sufficient to sustain the conviction.” Id. Here, the trial
court’s comments regarding Officer Gardner’s testimony are legally irrelevant.
And, even if Officer Gardner’s testimony is completely disregarded, there is
sufficient evidence to support Schauf’s conviction.
Conclusion
[10] There is sufficient evidence to support Schauf’s conviction. We affirm.
[11] Affirmed.
May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1406-CR-444 |February 26, 2015 Page 5 of 5