MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Apr 25 2019, 9:52 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
Alan K. Wilson Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Muncie, Indiana
Marjorie Lawyer-Smith
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of J.L., III, a Child April 25, 2019
Alleged to be a Delinquent Court of Appeals Case No.
Child, 18A-JV-2529
Appellant-Respondent, Appeal from the Delaware Circuit
Court
v. The Honorable Amanda Yonally,
Magistrate
State of Indiana, Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Petitioner 18C02-1808-JD-99
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-2529 | April 25, 2019 Page 1 of 5
[1] J.L., III, appeals his delinquency adjudications for acts that would have been
Class A Misdemeanor Battery Resulting in Bodily Injury1 and Class A
Misdemeanor Dangerous Possession of a Firearm 2 had they been committed by
an adult. He argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the
adjudications. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On August 5, 2018, Danielle Fleming went to a house in Muncie, not knowing
that her son, J.L., would be there. Fleming and J.L. had been fighting recently.
When she arrived at the house, Fleming approached J.L. and yelled that she
was tired of him being disrespectful to her. J.L. pushed her away from him
with his forearm and hit her in the chest. When he turned away from her, she
slapped him on the face. She bear hugged J.L., who grabbed her arms, leaving
a bruise. Family members then stepped in to separate them.
[3] J.L. “stormed” outside after the altercation, making statements indicating he
was still very angry with his mother. Tr. Vol. II p. 10, 28. He returned into the
house and pulled an object that appeared to be a black gun handle from the
pocket of his shorts. It was apparent that he had a gun based on the handle and
the way his shorts were sagging. Someone called the police and J.L. fled the
scene but was later apprehended.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(d).
2
Ind. Code § 35-47-10-5(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-2529 | April 25, 2019 Page 2 of 5
[4] On August 13, 2018, the State filed a petition alleging that J.L. was a
delinquent child for committing acts that would have been Level 6 felony
intimidation, Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury, and Class
A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm, had they been committed
by an adult.
[5] A factfinding hearing took place on August 28, 2018. At the close of the State’s
case in chief, J.L. moved for judgment on the evidence with respect to the
intimidation and battery counts. The State conceded with respect to the
intimidation count, so the juvenile court granted J.L.’s motion as to
intimidation but denied it as to battery. At the conclusion of the evidence, the
juvenile court adjudicated J.L. a delinquent for the battery and possession of a
firearm counts. At a September 24, 2018, dispositional hearing, the juvenile
court ordered that J.L. be committed to the Logansport Juvenile Intake
Diagnostic Facility for an indeterminate period of time. J.L. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[6] J.L. argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the delinquency
adjudications. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence
supporting a delinquency adjudication, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge
witness credibility and will consider only the evidence favorable to the
judgment and the reasonable inferences supporting it. J.S. v. State, 114 N.E.3d
518, 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. We will affirm if there is substantial
evidence of probative value from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-2529 | April 25, 2019 Page 3 of 5
beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile engaged in the unlawful conduct.
Id.
[7] To support its allegation of delinquency for Class A misdemeanor battery
causing bodily injury, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that J.L. knowingly or intentionally touched Fleming in a rude, insolent,
or angry manner, resulting in bodily injury. I.C. § 35-42-2-1(d).
[8] At the factfinding hearing, Fleming testified that J.L. grabbed her arms during
their fight and that she had bruises as a result. Another witness testified that
she had observed bruising to Fleming’s arm, and a third witness testified that
J.L. had grabbed Fleming by the arm. Indeed, J.L. even admitted during his
testimony that he had grabbed Fleming’s arms and caused bruising. J.L.,
however, claimed that he had acted in self-defense. The juvenile court
acknowledged that there was conflicting evidence, but after assessing the
evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, resolved the conflict against J.L.
We cannot second guess this assessment. Given that we may only consider the
evidence most favorable to the adjudication, we find that the evidence is
sufficient to support the finding that J.L. committed an act that would have
been Class A misdemeanor battery had it been committed by an adult.
[9] To support its allegation of delinquency for Class A misdemeanor dangerous
possession of a firearm, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that J.L. knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly possessed a firearm for a
purpose not exempted from the statute. I.C. § 35-47-10-5(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-2529 | April 25, 2019 Page 4 of 5
[10] At the factfinding hearing, a witness testified that when J.L. returned to the
house after the altercation with Fleming, she saw him pull a black object out of
his pocket that appeared to be a gun. She was sure that it was a gun after seeing
the handle and the way his shorts were sagging. She is familiar with weapons
because of her grandfather. The juvenile court explicitly found that the
witness’s testimony “was credible, that she is familiar with a firearm, . . . and
that she . . . believed that the defendant had a firearm in his possession on that
day.” Tr. Vol. II p. 76. The juvenile court noted J.L.’s explanation that it was
a cell phone, not a gun, in his pocket, but ultimately found the witness’s
testimony to be more credible. Given our standard of review, we find the
evidence sufficient to support the finding that J.L. committed an act that would
have been Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a gun had it been
committed by an adult.
[11] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-2529 | April 25, 2019 Page 5 of 5