MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Dec 21 2017, 10:29 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Laura R. Anderson
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Deion Edmond, December 21, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1708-CR-1734
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Christina
Appellee-Plaintiff. Klineman, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G17-1706-CM-22066
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-CR-1734 | December 21, 2017 Page 1 of 5
[1] Deion Edmond appeals his conviction for domestic battery as a class A
misdemeanor. Edmond raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether
the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On June 9, 2017, Marsha Brown traveled to a parking lot at Eskenazi Hospital
with her boyfriend Edmond and was going to the emergency room due to an
issue with her leg. It was nighttime and dark outside. When Edmond and
Brown were in the hospital’s parking lot, Edmond told Brown that she needed
to go to another hospital, but she did not want to leave. Brittany Day drove
into the parking lot at the emergency room and could hear Edmond talking
loudly. Day began to walk into the emergency room and, when she was
approximately ten to fifteen feet from Edmond and Brown, heard Edmond say:
“You’re a dumb bitch. You were never pregnant. You just wanted to keep me
around.” Transcript Volume 2 at 11. Day heard Brown telling Edmond to
stop. Day heard “like crying or something” and looked at Edmond and Brown,
observed that Edmond had Brown’s hair wrapped in his arm and was pulling
her, and heard Edmond say: “You were never pregnant. You lied to me.” Id.
at 12-13. Day then “physically hear[d] him hit her,” looked at them, and
observed Edmond strike Brown on the side of her face with “like a closed fist.”
Id. at 13. Brown was crying and said “[g]et off of me.” Id. Day observed that
Edmond appeared angry and Brown appeared very scared. Day reported what
she had observed to a security officer in the hospital. When the security officer
asked Brown if Edmond had hit her, she looked down and said “[n]o.” Id. at
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-CR-1734 | December 21, 2017 Page 2 of 5
16. When the security officer asked Day if she saw Edmond hit Brown, Day
answered affirmatively, and then Edmond told Day to “mind [her] own
business.” Id. at 17.
[3] On June 14, 2017, the State charged Edmond with domestic battery and battery
resulting in bodily injury as class A misdemeanors. At Edmond’s bench trial,
Day testified consistent with the foregoing. Brown testified: “[Edmond] told
me that I needed to go to another hospital and I didn’t want to go and he had
his hands on me, like this, but he didn’t have no -- it wasn’t near me, like this,
and I pushed his hand off of me and I said, ‘No. I’m not going to another
hospital.’” Id. at 8. Brown testified Edmond “was loud, telling me that I
needed to go to another hospital because my leg was inflamated [sic] . . . .” Id.
When asked “did [Edmond] strike you at all,” she answered “No.” Id. at 9.
The court found Edmond guilty of domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor
and not guilty of battery resulting in bodily injury and sentenced Edmond to
120 days in the Marion County Jail.
Discussion
[4] The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to support Edmond’s conviction.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we
must 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 assess
witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. Id. We consider conflicting
evidence most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Id. We affirm the conviction
unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-CR-1734 | December 21, 2017 Page 3 of 5
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may
reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. at 147. The
uncorroborated testimony of one witness can be sufficient to sustain a
conviction. Ferrell v. State, 565 N.E.2d 1070, 1072-1073 (Ind. 1991).
[5] Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a) provides in part that “[a] person who knowingly or
intentionally: (1) touches a family or household member in a rude, insolent, or
angry manner . . . commits domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor.” The
State alleged that Edmond did knowingly touch Brown, a family or household
member, in a rude, insolent or angry manner by striking at and against her with
his hands.
[6] Edmond asserts that Brown testified that he did not hit her, that Brown pushed
his hand off or away while they were conversing, and that, while Day reported
that she saw him strike Brown, it was dark outside at the time of the incident.
He argues “the question as to whether an individual had been touched in a
rude, insolent or angry manner . . . must be answered by that particular
individual, not a bystander,” “[o]therwise, a witness could completely
misinterpret interaction between two other persons and mistakenly conclude,
like here, that a crime had been committed when, in fact, the ‘victim’ of the
‘crime’ does not claim to be victimized,” and “[t]here is no other way to
interpret this situation.” Appellant’s Brief at 8-9. Edmond does not argue that
Brown was not a family or household member. The State maintains that
Edmond’s argument amounts to an impermissible request for this court to
reassess the credibility of the witnesses.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-CR-1734 | December 21, 2017 Page 4 of 5
[7] “[W]hen appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must
consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.” Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146
(internal quotation marks omitted). The evidence most favorable to the trial
court’s ruling is that Edmond argued with Brown in the hospital parking lot and
struck her on the side of her face. The trial court as the trier of fact was free to
believe the testimony of Day and disbelieve the testimony of Brown. Further,
the trier of fact was able to assess Day’s testimony in light of her distance from
Edmond and Brown in the parking lot and the fact it was dark outside. We will
not assess the credibility of the witnesses or reweigh their testimony. See id.
[8] Based upon the evidence as set forth above and in the record, we conclude that
the trial court as the trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that
Edmond committed the offense of domestic battery as class A misdemeanor.
Conclusion
[9] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Edmond’s conviction.
[10] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1708-CR-1734 | December 21, 2017 Page 5 of 5