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:
BARBARA J. SIMMONS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Oldenberg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
MICHAEL GENE WORDEN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Apr 08 2013, 9:30 am
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CHAD LINDSTROM, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1209-CR-739
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Shatrese M. Flowers, Master Commissioner
Cause No. 49F07-1206-CM-38717
April 8, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NAJAM, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Chad Lindstrom appeals his conviction for battery, as a Class A misdemeanor,
following a bench trial. Lindstrom presents a single issue for our review, namely,
whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction.
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 7, 2012, Lindstrom and Robert Beard, both employees of Shively’s Lawn
Care, were working together at a large residential complex in Greenwood. At
approximately 10:45 a.m., just after Beard had taken a break to get a bottle of water,
Lindstrom came up from behind him, knocked him to the ground, stepped on his hand,
and punched him several times. Another coworker, Daniel Johnson, had observed
Lindstrom approach Beard, but Johnson was on a mower and drove out of sight, around a
house. As Johnson rode back into the view of the two men a short time later, he saw
Lindstrom standing over Beard, who was on the ground. Johnson got off of his mower
and went over to ask what had happened. Beard was holding his face and said that
Lindstrom had “attacked” him. Transcript at 20. Johnson encouraged Beard to contact
their boss, and Beard called the police.
The State charged Lindstrom with battery, as a Class A misdemeanor. The trial
court found Lindstrom guilty as charged following a bench trial and entered judgment
and sentence accordingly. This appeal ensued.
2
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Lindstrom asserts that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is challenged,
we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we affirm
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. Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 905-06 (Ind. 2005). It is the job of
the fact-finder to determine whether the evidence in a particular case sufficiently proves
each element of an offense, and we consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the
trial court’s ruling. Id. at 906.
To prove battery, as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was required to show that
Lindstrom knowingly, in a rude, insolent or angry manner, touched Beard which resulted
in bodily injury to Beard. See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1. Lindstrom’s sole contention on
appeal is that Beard’s testimony is incredibly dubious and, as such, cannot support his
conviction. Our supreme court has explained the incredible dubiosity rule as follows:
If a sole witness presents inherently improbable testimony and there is a
complete lack of circumstantial evidence, a defendant’s conviction may be
reversed. This is appropriate only where the court has confronted
inherently improbable testimony or coerced, equivocal, wholly
uncorroborated testimony of incredible dubiosity. Application of this rule
is rare and the standard to be applied is whether the testimony is so
incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no reasonable person
could believe it.
Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2002) (citations omitted).
The incredible dubiosity rule does not apply to Beard’s testimony. Beard was not
a “sole witness,” and his testimony was not “inherently improbable . . . or coerced,
3
equivocal, [or] wholly uncorroborated.” Id. Beard testified that he was on the ground as
Lindstrom stood on his hand and punched him several times, causing injuries. And
Beard’s testimony was corroborated by circumstantial evidence. Johnson testified that he
was on his riding mower when he saw Lindstrom approach Beard at the water truck.
After Johnson made a loop around the nearby house, he then saw Lindstrom standing
over Beard, who was on the ground. Beard was holding his face and told Johnson that
Lindstrom had “attacked” him. Transcript at 20. In addition, after Jerry Shively, the
owner of Shively’s Lawn Care, arrived at the scene, Lindstrom told Shively that “he was
sorry for everything.” Id. at 28. The evidence is sufficient to support Lindstrom’s
conviction for battery, as a Class A misdemeanor.
Affirmed.
BAILEY, J., and BARNES, J., concur.
4