Nathan Arnold v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Nov 16 2017, 6:49 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Elizabeth A. Houdek Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
George P. Sherman
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Nathan Arnold, November 16, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1706-CR-1257
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Linda E. Brown,
Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Trial Court Cause No.
49G10-1702-CM-5763
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-CR-1257 | November 16, 2017 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Appellant-Defendant Nathan Arnold was being moved in a police transport
wagon when he began kicking a barrier, damaging it. The State charged
Arnold with Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and the trial court found
him guilty as charged. Arnold contends that the State produced insufficient
evidence to sustain his criminal mischief conviction. Because we disagree, we
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On February 11, 2017, Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy Terrence Green was
transporting Arnold from Eskenazi Hospital to the arrestee processing center in
Indianapolis when Deputy Green heard a loud noise. Deputy Green turned
around and saw Arnold kicking a barricade inside the transport wagon that
keeps inmates separated, damaging it. On February 12, 2017, the State charged
Arnold with Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, and, following a bench
trial held on May 16, 2017, the trial court found him guilty as charged and
sentenced him to 180 days of incarceration with 140 suspended to probation.
Discussion and Decision
[3] Arnold contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to sustain his
criminal mischief conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence
supporting a conviction, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the
credibility of witnesses. Staton v. State, 853 N.E.2d 470, 474 (Ind. 2006). We
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-CR-1257 | November 16, 2017 Page 2 of 4
must look to the evidence most favorable to the conviction together with all
reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. Id. We will affirm a
conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each
element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[4] In order to convict Arnold of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, the State
was required to establish that he “recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally
damage[d] or deface[d] property of another person without the other person’s
consent[.]” Arnold argues only that the State failed to present sufficient
evidence to sustain a finding that he damaged the transport wagon. Deputy
Green, when asked if Arnold damaged the transport wagon, answered, “Yes.”
Tr. Vol. II p. 5. In addition, Deputy Green testified that he saw Arnold kicking
the barrier during transport. Arnold argues that Deputy Green’s testimony
should have been more specific.1 Arnold, however, does not draw our attention
to any authority that requires more specificity, and we are aware of none. As
such, we conclude that this testimony is sufficient to support a finding that
Arnold satisfied the damage element of criminal mischief. Arnold also notes
that Deputy Green did not testify that he inspected the transport wagon before
transporting Arnold, which he argues should have been necessary to establish
that the damage was not caused by another person. Again, we are aware of no
1
While ultimately not necessary to our review on appeal, certainly, additional questions concerning a
description of the damage would have been relevant and helpful in this case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-CR-1257 | November 16, 2017 Page 3 of 4
authority that would require such evidence. Deputy Green’s testimony is
sufficient to support a reasonable inference that he witnessed Arnold causing
visible damage to the transport wagon. Arnold’s arguments are nothing more
than invitations to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Staton, 853
N.E.2d at 474.
[5] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-CR-1257 | November 16, 2017 Page 4 of 4