MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 08 2018, 6:05 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral 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
Evan Matthew Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Mon Htaw, June 8, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1712-CR-2902
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Peggy R. Hart,
Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G10-1611-CM-44099
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1712-CR-2902 | June 8, 2018 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Mon Htaw appeals her conviction for class A misdemeanor battery following a
bench trial. Htaw argues that there was insufficient evidence to support her
conviction. Finding that the evidence was sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The evidence most favorable to the judgment shows that on November 12,
2016, Mon Htaw rushed home from work when her sister Mon Sorn called her
after an altercation with their roommate, Ma Suu. Followed by Sorn, Htaw
stormed into Suu’s room, and Suu recorded a video using her phone when she
noticed Htaw’s angry demeanor. Htaw yelled at Suu, and Htaw and Sorn
punched Suu several times, whereby Suu sustained multiple facial injuries.
[3] After hearing the commotion emanating from Suu’s bedroom, Nick Nix and
Travis Cress entered the bedroom where Htaw, Sorn, and Suu were grappling.
Cress and others eventually put an end to the fight by separating the women.
The police were then called, and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer
Brandon Smith responded. Htaw admitted to Officer Smith that she had hit
Suu.
[4] The State charged Htaw with battery resulting in bodily injury, a class A
misdemeanor. The trial court found her guilty and sentenced her to 365 days.
This appeal ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1712-CR-2902 | June 8, 2018 Page 2 of 4
Discussion and Decision
[5] Htaw challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. In
reviewing an insufficient evidence claim, we do not reweigh the evidence or
judge the credibility of witnesses. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind.
2009). Rather, we consider only the evidence that supports the judgment and
the reasonable inferences arising therefrom. Id. “We will affirm if there is
substantial evidence of probative value such that a reasonable trier of fact could
have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
[6] A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude,
insolent, or angry manner commits battery, a class A misdemeanor if it results
in bodily injury to any other person. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), -(d)(1). Htaw
concedes that a battery occurred, but argues that the evidence presented at trial
was speculative insomuch that it does not show she was responsible for the
battery. She contends that the names of some of the parties and the testimony
could be confusing. Htaw also argues that the video Suu had recorded does not
actually show any physical contact between the two parties. However, Htaw’s
argument ignores the longstanding principle that “it is precisely within the
domain of the trier of fact to sift through conflicting accounts of events.” In re
J.L.T., 712 N.E.2d 7, 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.
[7] Officer Smith testified that Htaw admitted to battering Suu. Suu testified that
Htaw battered her, and the video that Suu recorded in anticipation of the
battery shows Htaw aggressively approaching her as though ready to fight.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1712-CR-2902 | June 8, 2018 Page 3 of 4
Based on this evidence, a reasonable factfinder could infer that Htaw battered
Suu. Htaw’s contentions merely invite this Court to reweigh the evidence and
judge the credibility of the witnesses’ testimony. We must decline this
invitation. Therefore, we affirm Htaw’s conviction.
[8] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1712-CR-2902 | June 8, 2018 Page 4 of 4