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, May 30 2013, 8:38 am
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
SUZY ST. JOHN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
MICHELLE BUMGARNER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
RUSSELL GRADY, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1210-CR-854
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Rebekah Pierson-Treacy, Judge
Cause No. 49F19-1205-CM-32927
May 30, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
RILEY, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant-Defendant, Russell Grady (Grady), appeals his conviction for battery, a
Class A misdemeanor, Indiana Code § 35-42-2-1.
We affirm.
ISSUE
Grady raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether there is sufficient
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support his conviction.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Grady worked as a contractor at Xerox in Indianapolis. On April 30, 2012,
Grady’s employer telephoned him at Xerox and informed him that he was being
terminated. Because Xerox handles confidential information, terminated workers are not
permitted to return to their desks or computers. Grady nevertheless returned to his desk
and attempted to use his computer. Michelle Akers, Grady’s supervisor, approached
Grady and told him to turn off his computer. When Grady refused, Akers pushed the
button on the computer’s hard drive to turn it off for him. While Akers was pushing the
button, Grady struck her arm, causing bruises.
On May 21, 2012, the State filed an Information charging Grady with battery as a
Class A misdemeanor, I.C. § 35-42-2-1. At the October 1, 2012, bench trial, the State
offered into evidence photographs taken the day after Grady struck Akers. The
photographs showed bruises on Akers’ arm. Officer Dennis Scott testified that when he
2
interviewed Akers, he also noticed bruises on her arm. Grady was convicted as charged
and sentenced to 365 days in jail, with 361 days suspended to probation.
Grady now appeals. We will provide additional facts when necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Grady concedes that the “evidence presented in this case, if true, would normally
be sufficient to sustain a conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery.” (Appellant’s Br.,
p. 5). However, Grady contends that this evidence is insufficient to support his battery
conviction because Akers’ testimony was incredibly dubious. Our standard of review for
sufficiency of the evidence is well settled. We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the
credibility of the witnesses. Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1019 (Ind. Ct. App.
1999). Rather, we will consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict, together
will all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. The conviction will be affirmed
if substantial evidence of probative value exists from which a trier of fact could find the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
Pursuant to the narrow limits of the incredible dubiosity rule, a reviewing court
may impinge upon the finder of fact’s function to judge the credibility of witnesses. Love
v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2002). We may reverse a conviction if a sole witness
presents inherently improbable testimony and there is a complete lack of circumstantial
evidence. Id. This is appropriate only in the event of inherently improbable testimony or
coerced, equivocal, wholly uncorroborated testimony of incredible dubiosity. Id.
Application of this rule is rare, and the standard to be applied is whether the testimony is
3
so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no reasonable person could believe it.
Id.
Here, Akers’ testimony was neither equivocal nor wholly uncorroborated. First,
she never waivered from her account of the events, and her testimony did not present any
internal inconsistencies. Second, circumstantial evidence was presented by Officer Scott,
who observed bruises on Akers’ arms. Photographs taken the day after the incident and
offered into evidence at trial also showed the bruises. Akers’ testimony was not so
incredibly dubious that no reasonable person could believe it, and there is sufficient
evidence to support Grady’s battery conviction.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support
Grady’s battery conviction.
Affirmed.
BRADFORD, J. and BROWN, J. concur
4