MEMORANDUM DECISION
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 FILED
the defense of res judicata, collateral Apr 10 2018, 10:42 am
estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Donald C. Swanson, Jr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Fort Wayne, Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Nathaniel Smith, April 10, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A03-1710-CR-2522
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Wendy W. Davis,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D04-1702-F6-204
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-CR-2522 | April 10, 2018 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] On February 20, 2017, Appellant-Defendant Nathaniel Smith was involved in a
domestic incident with his then-girlfriend. He was subsequently charged with
Level 6 felony domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor interference with the
reporting of a crime. Following a jury trial, Smith was acquitted of the
domestic battery charge but found guilty of Class A misdemeanor interference
with the reporting of a crime. In challenging his conviction on appeal, Smith
contends that the jury could not find him guilty of the offense because it
acquitted him of the underlying domestic battery charge. Alternatively, Smith
contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Concluding
otherwise, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] As of February 20, 2017, Smith and Danielle Craft had been engaged in a
romantic relationship for about three years and lived together in a home with
Craft’s eleven-year-old daughter. At some point that day, Craft repeatedly
attempted to contact Smith via his cellular phone. Craft became suspicious
when Smith did not answer her calls and later accused him of cheating on her.
After Craft levied accusations of cheating, Smith indicated via text message that
he was moving out of their shared residence.
[3] Later that evening, as Smith was collecting his belongings from the couple’s
shared bedroom, Craft stood in the doorway to the room, trapping Smith
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-CR-2522 | April 10, 2018 Page 2 of 7
inside. She indicated that she would not move until Smith agreed to talk to her.
Smith repeatedly asked Craft to move. When she refused, Smith “pushed [her]
out [of] the way and got out.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 166. Craft then ran upstairs to
grab her daughter’s cellular phone and called 911. When Craft informed Smith
that she was calling 911, Smith “snatched” the phone out of her hands and
threw it away from her. Tr. Vol. II, p. 168. After that, Craft and her daughter
left the residence and went to a neighbor’s home.
[4] When police eventually arrived at the residence, officers observed red marks on
Craft’s neck and arms. Officers also observed that Smith’s left hand was
bandaged and that he had cuts on his right hand. In light of the officers’
observations coupled with the statements made by Smith, Craft, and Craft’s
daughter, Smith was placed under arrest.
[5] On February 23, 2017, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”)
charged Smith with one count of Level 6 felony domestic battery and one count
of Class A misdemeanor interference with the reporting of a crime. A two-day
jury trial was conducted on September 21 and 22, 2017. Following trial, the
jury acquitted Smith of the domestic battery charge but found him guilty of
Class A misdemeanor interference with the reporting of a crime. Smith was
subsequently sentenced to one year in jail. This appeal follows.
Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-CR-2522 | April 10, 2018 Page 3 of 7
[6] On appeal, Smith contends that the jury could not find him guilty of Class A
misdemeanor interference with the reporting of a crime because it found him
not guilty of the underlying domestic battery charge. Alternatively, Smith
contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. We disagree
with both contentions.
I. Whether the Jury Could Find Smith Guilty of Class A
Misdemeanor Interference with the Reporting of a Crime
[7] In contending that the jury could not find him guilty of Class A misdemeanor
interference with the reporting of a crime, Smith argues that “[w]ithout an
underlying crime, there is no crime to conceal, there can be no intent to
conceal, and one cannot interfere with the reporting of a crime.” Appellant’s
Br. p. 15. Although the jury ultimately acquitted Smith of the underlying
domestic battery charge, we disagree that the jury could not also convict him of
the crime of interfering with the reporting of a crime.
[8] To convict Smith of Level 6 felony domestic battery, the jury was required to
find that Smith touched Craft in a rude, insolent, or angry manner while in the
presence of a child. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3. To convict him of interference
with the reporting of a crime, the jury was required to find that Smith, “with the
intent to commit, conceal, or aid in the commission of a crime, knowingly or
intentionally” interfered with Craft’s use of the 911 emergency telephone
system. Ind. Code § 35-45-2-5. As a plain reading of Indiana Code section 35-
45-2-5 demonstrates, a defendant need only intend to commit, conceal, or aid in
the commission of the crime when interfering with the reporting of it. We fail
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-CR-2522 | April 10, 2018 Page 4 of 7
to see how Smith’s acquittal on the domestic battery charge negates any
element of the charge of interfering with the reporting of a crime, as it is
immaterial to the interference conviction that no underlying crime actually
occurred, so long as the evidence supports a finding of intent to commit,
conceal, or aid in the commission of a crime. Further, to the extent that such
verdicts could be considered inconsistent with one another, the Indiana
Supreme Court has concluded that “[j]ury verdicts in criminal cases are not
subject to appellate review on the grounds that they are inconsistent,
contradictory, or irreconcilable.” Beattie v. State, 924 N.E.2d 643, 648 (Ind.
2010).
II. Whether the Evidence is Sufficient to Sustain Smith’s
Conviction
[9] Smith alternatively contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his
conviction. Specifically, Smith argues that because Craft had previously
threatened to call 911 but had never done so, he had no reason to believe that
Craft would actually call 911 during the altercation in question.
[10] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative
evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is
the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess
witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether
it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure,
when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence,
they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.
Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-
finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-CR-2522 | April 10, 2018 Page 5 of 7
reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence
overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The
evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn
from it to support the verdict.
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (citations, emphasis, and
quotations omitted). “In essence, we assess only whether the verdict could be
reached based on reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence
presented.” Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind. 2012) (emphasis in
original). Upon review, appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or assess
the credibility of the witnesses. Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433, 435 (Ind.
2002).
[11] In order to prove that Smith committed Class A misdemeanor interference with
the reporting of a crime, the State was required that prove that he, with the
intent to commit, conceal, or aid in the commission of a crime, knowingly or
intentionally interfered with or prevented Craft from using a 911 emergency
telephone system. See Ind. Code § 35-45-2-5. The evidence most favorable to
the jury’s verdict demonstrates that Craft told Smith that she was calling 911
and that after Craft did so, Smith “snatched” the phone from her hands and
threw it away from her. Tr. Vol. II, p. 168. In addition, Smith admitted to a
responding officer that he “broke a phone” during the altercation with Craft.
Tr. Vol. II, p. 225. Upon review, we conclude that this evidence is sufficient to
prove that Smith knowingly or intentionally interfered with Craft’s attempt to
call 911 with the intent to commit, conceal, or aid the commission of a crime.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-CR-2522 | April 10, 2018 Page 6 of 7
Smith’s contention to the contrary amounts to an invitation to reweigh the
evidence, which we will not do. See Stewart, 768 N.E.2d at 435.
[12] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-CR-2522 | April 10, 2018 Page 7 of 7
Nathaniel Smith v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion