Shawn Phillips v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Mar 29 2018, 10:59 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Barbara J. Simmons Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Shawn Phillips, March 29, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1709-CR-2102
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Christina
Appellee-Plaintiff Klineman, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G17-1707-CM-27920
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2102 | March 29, 2018 Page 1 of 4
[1] Shawn Phillips challenges his conviction for Class A misdemeanor domestic
battery by bodily waste. He claims that the State presented insufficient
evidence.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On July 29, 2017, R.A. was living with and in a romantic relationship with
Phillips. As R.A. prepared to go to a baseball game with others, Phillips
informed R.A. that her mother sent a text message indicating that she was no
longer going to the game. Phillips refused to let R.A. read the message. R.A.
“brushed it off and continued getting ready.” Transcript at 8.
[4] When Phillips then went outside, R.A. looked into the parking lot of the
apartment complex from her second-floor balcony. She observed Phillips try to
enter her locked car and then go to one of the tires and “start[] letting air out of
it” to prevent her from leaving. Id. at 10. R.A. went back inside the apartment
to finish getting ready and figure out how to leave. Phillips came into the
bathroom and started urinating in the toilet less than three feet from her. He
then turned toward R.A., looked directly at her, and urinated on her right side
from her armpit down the whole side of her body for several seconds. Phillips
then said, “You are no longer leaving. Now get in the shower.” Id. at 11.
Flustered, R.A. told Phillips he was disgusting and then grabbed dry clothes
and went outside. R.A.’s mother was waiting in the parking lot and called the
police.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2102 | March 29, 2018 Page 2 of 4
[5] Officer Corey Schnick with IMPD responded to the scene and spoke with R.A.,
who excitedly said, “He peed on me.” Id. at 15. R.A. was wearing a dark shirt,
and Officer Schnick observed, as R.A. pulled the shirt away from her body, that
“the fabric from her shirt, on her right side, appeared to be heavier than the rest
of her shirt.” Id. at 17. He explained at trial that he could not see a difference
in the color of the shirt but could tell it was wet “by the look of the, I guess how
it was shaking in the breeze.” Id. Phillips was arrested and charged the
following day with domestic battery by bodily waste.
[6] On August 23, 2017, a bench trial was held. Phillips testified briefly in his own
defense, denying that he urinated on R.A. The trial court considered the
conflicting evidence and determined that Phillips was guilty as charged.
Discussion & Decision
[7] Phillips contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he urinated
on R.A. Specifically, he notes his denial and argues that the State presented no
photographs of the shirt or the bathroom and no evidence regarding whether
there was a urine odor on the shirt or urine on the bathroom floor. Phillips
asserts: “This is the classic case of a vindictive girlfriend making a false
accusation – a she said-he said matter.” Appellant’s Brief at 8.
[8] When we consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Suggs v. State,
51 N.E.3d 1190, 1193 (Ind. 2016). Instead, we consider only the evidence and
reasonable inferences supporting the conviction. Id. We will affirm if there is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2102 | March 29, 2018 Page 3 of 4
probative evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[9] We reject Phillips blatant request for us to reweigh the evidence and to judge
R.A.’s credibility. Her testimony alone was sufficient to support the conviction.
See Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012) (“A conviction can be
sustained on only the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even when
that witness is the victim.”).
[10] Judgment affirmed.
Najam, J. and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2102 | March 29, 2018 Page 4 of 4