MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Oct 11 2019, 9:23 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
Talisha Griffin Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Sierra A. Murray
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Harold Jones, October 11, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-501
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela D. Davis
Appellee-Plaintiff Trial Court Cause No.
49G16-1807-F6-22512
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-501 | October 11, 2019 Page 1 of 6
[1] Harold Jones appeals his convictions of Level 6 felony intimidation 1 and Class
A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. 2 Jones argues his convictions
should be overturned because the victim’s testimony was incredibly dubious.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On July 9, 2018, Jones was visiting his girlfriend, D.B., at the residence she
shared with her mother, U.L.; one-year-old son, K.B.; grandfather, Mason; and
grandmother, Debra. U.L., with whom Jones had prior sexual history, was in
the living and dining area of the home when she saw Jones come out of the
bathroom. U.L. told Jones that K.B. wanted to watch television. Jones
responded, “it’s not his mother’s fucking tv, it[’]s mine.” (Tr. Vol. II at 9.)
U.L. commented that the language Jones was using around the child was
“hostile.” (Id.)
[3] Jones responded to U.L.’s comment by getting “in her face” and calling her “a
little shit[.]” (Id. at 10, 11.) U.L. repeatedly asked Jones to get out of her face,
and when he did not, she pushed Jones away. Jones then smacked U.L.’s face,
and U.L. responded by throwing her phone at Jones. The phone struck Jones
in the face.
1
Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(2).
2
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-501 | October 11, 2019 Page 2 of 6
[4] Jones then punched U.L. in the face. U.L. stated “you were fucking me and
eating me out, why are you hitting me now?” (App. Vol. II at 16.) U.L’s
father, Mason, escorted Jones out of the house after the altercation. Jones
formed his hand into the shape of a gun, pantomimed shooting U.L., and stated
“bitch, don’t you come over here, I’ll shoot you.” (Tr. Vol. II at 14.) Because
U.L. knew Jones owned a gun, she interpreted his gesture as a credible threat to
shoot her, and she called the police.
[5] Upon their arrival, the police found Jones, D.B., and K.B. in a car parked
across the street from the house. Jones and D.B. admitted there had been a
confrontation. U.L. was “[v]ery agitated, extremely upset[,]” (id. at 27), and
“very emotional[.]” (Id. at 32.) U.L.’s injuries were documented at the
hospital, including a puncture wound on her upper thigh, and bruises and
scratches on her arms and face. Photos taken at the hospital depict redness and
a scratch where Jones had hit her.
[6] The State charged Jones with Level 6 felony domestic battery, 3 Level 6 felony
intimidation, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, 4 and Class A
misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. At the conclusion of a bench
trial held on July 11, 2018, the court convicted Jones of Level 6 felony
intimidation and Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. The
3
Ind. Code §§ 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1), (b)(2).
4
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-501 | October 11, 2019 Page 3 of 6
court imposed a 365-day suspended sentence and ordered 180 days of probation
subject to early termination upon the completion of 13 weeks of anger
management classes.
Discussion and Decision
[7] When reviewing claims of insufficient evidence, we examine the evidence
presented in a light most favorable to the verdict. Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d
1258, 1265 (Ind. 2015). We give deference to the trial court and affirm the
verdict unless there is “no substantial evidence of probative value to support it.”
Id.
[8] Jones asserts the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because
U.L.’s testimony was incredibly dubious. The incredible dubiosity rule allows
an appellate court to review the factual findings, but only where (1) “a sole
witness presents” (2) “inherently contradictory testimony which is equivocal or
the result of coercion” and (3) “there is a complete lack of circumstantial
evidence of the appellant’s guilt.” Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 755 (Ind.
2015). We will infringe upon a trial court’s finding only if a showing is made
under all three prongs. Id. at 765.
[9] At Jones’ trial, five witnesses testified and most of them provided corroborating
statements. The story U.L. consistently told and retold was not improbable.
Her testimony was not contradictory or equivocal. She testified that there was
a verbal alteration that led to physical violence and intimidating threats.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-501 | October 11, 2019 Page 4 of 6
Finally, considerable circumstantial evidence existed including pictures
showing the injuries sustained by U.L., two responding police officers testified
to U.L.’s injuries and to seeing Jones in the car across from the home, and the
testimony of both D.B. and Jones confirmed an altercation occurred. As such,
the incredible dubiosity rule does not apply in this case. See, e.g., Id. at 755
(incredible dubiosity rule does not apply because of multiple witnesses, lack of
testimonial inconsistencies, and the existence of circumstantial evidence).
[10] A person commits intimidation when he communicates a threat with the intent
of making a person fearful of retaliation. Ind. Code §§ 35-45-2-1(a)(2),
(b)(1)(A). U.L. testified Jones threated to kill her in retaliation for the fight and
for revealing the alleged affair. These facts meet the elements of intimidation.
See, e.g., Fleming v. State, 85 N.E.3d 626, 632 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (holding there
was sufficient evidence to support conviction for intimidation where a
reasonable fact finder could conclude threats were made with the intent to put
the victim in fear for his safety).
[11] The elements of battery resulting in bodily harm are knowingly or intentionally
touching someone “in a rude, insolent, or angry manner” causing bodily harm.
Ind. Code §§ 35-42-2-1(c)(1), (d)(1). U.L. testified that Jones pushed and hit
her, and she testified that she had injuries. Thus, the Record contains evidence
to support Jones’ conviction of battery resulting in bodily injury. See, e.g., Bailey
v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 143 (Ind. 2012) (appellant found guilty of battery
resulting in bodily injury after victim reported the battery caused physical pain).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-501 | October 11, 2019 Page 5 of 6
Conclusion
[12] The incredible dubiosity rule is inapplicable in this case, and there was
sufficient evidence to support Jones’ convictions. Therefore, the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-501 | October 11, 2019 Page 6 of 6
Harold Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion