Donald D. Denson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 16 2020, 10:54 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Christopher Taylor-Price Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Samuel J. Dayton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Donald D. Denson, July 16, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-435
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela Dow
Appellee-Plaintiff. Davis, Judge
The Honorable Hugh Patrick
Murphy, Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G16-1908-F6-31817
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-435 | July 16, 2020 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Donald Denson (“Denson”) appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, of
Level 6 felony domestic battery.1 He argues that there is insufficient evidence to
support his conviction. Concluding that there is sufficient evidence to support
Denson’s conviction, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Denson’s Level 6
felony domestic battery conviction.
Facts
[3] At approximately 9:00 p.m. on August 12, 2019, Indianapolis Metropolitan
Police Officers Kevin Miller (“Officer Miller”) and Adam Moss (“Officer
Moss”) were dispatched to a disturbance in the hallway of an eastside
Indianapolis apartment building. The officers approached the building and
were able to enter through one set of glass doors. However, a second set of
doors was locked. Although they were unable to open the doors, the officers
were able to look through glass panels on the doors.
[4] The officers observed Denson and a pregnant C.G. Denson had backed C.G.
into a hallway corner. He had his hands on her arms and was “shaking her
1
IND. CODE § 35-42-2-1.3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-435 | July 16, 2020 Page 2 of 5
back and forth.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 18). Denson appeared to be “very angry,” and
the situation “almost looked like a parent scolding a child.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 18).
[5] When the officers attempted to open the locked doors and “yelled to [Denson]
to stop[,]” Denson grabbed C.G.’s arms and pushed her further into the
building. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 11). C.G. “was frantic.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 11). Another
apartment building resident unlocked the doors, and the officers entered the
building and heard an apartment door shut.
[6] When the officers approached the door, they heard Denson and C.G. arguing.
The officers knocked at the door and asked Denson and C.G. to open it. When
C.G. opened the door, Officer Miller “removed her from the doorway and at
that time the door shut again.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 12). C.G.’s hair was “frazzled,”
she had “a raspy voice,” and she was crying. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 12). She told the
officers that she and Denson had been arguing and that the officers “were not
needed.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 21). Officer Moss convinced Denson to open the door
and took him into custody.
[7] The State charged Denson with Level 6 felony kidnapping and Class A
misdemeanor domestic battery. Officers Miller and Moss were the only
witnesses to testify at trial. At the end of the officers’ testimony, Denson
stipulated that he had a previous battery conviction, which elevated the
domestic battery charge from a Class A misdemeanor to a Level 6 felony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-435 | July 16, 2020 Page 3 of 5
[8] The trial court convicted Denson of Level 6 felony domestic battery and
sentenced him to 365 days of Community Corrections Home Detention.
Denson now appeals his conviction.
Decision
[9] Denson argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for
Level 6 felony domestic battery. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the
evidence claims is well-settled. We consider only the probative evidence and
reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144,
146 (Ind. 2007). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility.
Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is
sufficient if an inference may be reasonably drawn from it to support the
verdict. Id. at 147.
[10] In order to convict Denson of Level 6 felony domestic battery, the State had the
burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Denson knowingly or
intentionally touched C.G., a family or household member, in a rude, insolent,
or angry manner and that Denson had a previous unrelated battery conviction.
See I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3.
[11] Here, Denson contends that “[t]he record provided by the State falls short of
proving beyond a reasonable doubt that [his] touching of C.G. was done in a
rude, insolent, or angry manner.” (Denson’s Br. 10). However, our review of
the evidence reveals that Officers Miller and Moss observed Denson with his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-435 | July 16, 2020 Page 4 of 5
hands on C.G.’s arms. Denson, who appeared to be very angry, was shaking
C.G. back and forth. When the officers yelled at Denson to stop, Denson
pushed a frantic C.G. further into the building. When the officers were finally
able to talk to C.G., her hair was “frazzled,” she had “a raspy voice,” and she
was crying. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 12). This evidence is sufficient to prove that
Denson’s touching of C.G. was done in a rude, insolent, or angry manner and
to support Denson’s conviction for Level 6 felony domestic battery.2
Affirmed.
Bradford, C.J., and Baker, J., concur.
2
Denson also contends that the State failed to present any evidence as to why Denson and C.G. were
arguing. However, the reason for the argument is not an element of the offense. See Mathis v. State, 859
N.E.2d 1275, 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). In addition, Denson’s argument that “[t]he officers’ viewpoints were
impeded by a door which they had to look over and through a glass portion on top to see Denson and C.G.” is a
request that we reweigh the evidence. (Denson’s Br. 9). This we cannot do. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-435 | July 16, 2020 Page 5 of 5