MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Jun 15 2015, 5:51 am
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
Corey L. Scott Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Chandra K. Hein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
K.G., June 15, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1410-JV-737
v. Appeal from the Marion County
Court;
The Honorable Marilyn Moores,
State of Indiana, Judge;
Appellee-Plaintiff. The Honorable Geoffrey Gaither,
Magistrate;
49D09-1406-JD-1402
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1410-JV-737 | June 15, 2015 Page 1 of 3
[1] K.G. appeals his adjudication as a delinquent child for committing acts that
would be Class A misdemeanor battery 1 if committed by an adult. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On June 4, 2014, K.G. and B.R., who were classmates, were walking home
from a restaurant. B.R. testified, “So [K.G.] kept on trying to come up to me
saying hit me, hit me, and I said no. So, my friend took my hand and barely
taped [sic] him. She thought he was playing and he turned around and hit me
harder than she made me tap him.” (Tr. at 67.) As a result of K.G.’s punch,
B.R.’s lip broke open and began to bleed.
[3] On June 5, the juvenile court authorized the filing of a delinquency petition.
After hearing evidence, the juvenile court entered a true finding.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Where the State seeks to have a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent for
committing acts that would be crimes were the juvenile an adult, the State has
the burden to prove every element of such crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
M.S. v. State, 889 N.E.2d 900, 901 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. We
neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. K.S. v.
State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 543 (Ind. 2006). We consider only the evidence most
favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences therefrom. Id. We will
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(b), (c) (2012).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1410-JV-737 | June 15, 2015 Page 2 of 3
affirm where there is substantial probative evidence to support the
determination of delinquency. Id. The delinquency finding will be sustained
on appeal unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. D.B. v. State, 842 N.E.2d 399, 402 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2006). The uncorroborated testimony of a single witness may suffice to
sustain the delinquency adjudication. D.W. v. State, 903 N.E.2d 966, 968 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.
[5] To prove K.G. committed an act that would be Class A misdemeanor battery,
the State was required to prove he knowingly or intentionally touched B.R. in a
“rude, insolent, or angry manner” and the contact resulted in “bodily injury to
the other person.” Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(b), (c) (2012). B.R. testified K.G. hit
her in the face and she suffered a bloody lip. K.G.’s alternate account of the
events is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See
K.S., 849 N.E.2d at 543 (appellate court does not reweigh the evidence or judge
the credibility of witnesses). Accordingly, we affirm.
[6] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1410-JV-737 | June 15, 2015 Page 3 of 3
K.G. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion