MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 16 2020, 10:33 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Scott H. Duerring Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Steven J. Hosler
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Brian K. Gates, Jr., July 16, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-119
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sanford,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71D03-1909-CM-3143
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-119 | July 16, 2020 Page 1 of 5
[1] Following a bench trial, Brian Gates was convicted of battery as a Class B
misdemeanor. On appeal, he argues the State presented insufficient evidence to
support his conviction.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Prior to August 2019, Gates had known Anthony Gidley and James Ragen for
a number of years. Both men had lived with Gates on separate occasions and
were also dating two of his cousins. In fact, when Gates moved into his
stepfather’s home a few months before the incident at issue, Ragen was also
living there. A few weeks prior to August, a disagreement between Gates and
his stepfather caused him to move out and relocate to LaPorte, Indiana.
[4] On August 9, 2019, Ragen, his girlfriend Tracy Himes (who is also Gates’s
cousin), Gidley, and Koa Ramos were dining at Arby’s in South Bend, Indiana.
As the group was beginning to leave, Gates arrived. Tracy “ran up, gave him a
hug,” and shortly afterwards Gates “started running his mouth.” Transcript Vol.
2 at 4. Gidley approached Gates, who swung, and struck him once on the left
side of the face. Both men “started trading words” before Gates returned to his
car and drove away. Id. Following Gates’s departure, Ramos called 9-1-1.
Shortly thereafter, Officer Zackary Overton responded to the scene and spoke
with Ragen and Gidley. Officer Overton observed a small bump in the middle
of Gidley’s left cheek.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-119 | July 16, 2020 Page 2 of 5
[5] On September 10, 2019, the State charged Gates with battery as a Class B
misdemeanor. A bench trial was held on December 19, 2019, at which Ragen
and Officer Overton testified for the State. Ragen placed Gates at the scene as
being the assailant who struck Gidley. Although adamant that he remembered
the incident, Ragen admitted during cross-examination that he did not know
whether Gates is right or left-handed. Gates testified on his own behalf and put
forth one central claim that he is left-handed. Gates elaborated that because of a
physical disability, he has limited use of his right arm and has “basically no grip
in it.” Id. at 16. In closing arguments, the State contested Gates’s claim. The
State pointed out how Gates manipulated his hands and arms, specifically using
his right arm to support himself in court. The State concluded that this was a
case that would come down to competing witness credibility.
[6] Ultimately, the trial court found Gates guilty as charged and sentenced him to
30 days incarceration, all suspended, with 180 days of probation. Gates now
appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
Decision & Discussion
[7] In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court will not
reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Atteberry v. State, 911
N.E.2d 601, 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Instead, we consider only the evidence
which supports the conviction, along with the reasonable inferences to be
drawn therefrom. Id. We will affirm if “there is substantial evidence of
probative value supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-119 | July 16, 2020 Page 3 of 5
trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Davis v. State, 813 N.E.2d 1176, 1178 (Ind. 2004).
[8] The heart of Gates’s argument on appeal is that the State failed to produce
evidence consisting of “substantial proof of credible facts to convict him beyond
a reasonable doubt”. Appellant’s Brief at 7-8. Gates challenges Ragen’s credibility
as the State’s sole eyewitness, noting that Ragen had no independent
recollection of the date or time of the incident at issue. Furthermore, Ragen
could not say whether Gates is left or right-handed. Gates testified that he is
left-handed and has limited use of his right arm. An injury to the left side of
Gidley’s face would likely have required Gates to strike using his right hand.
Gates’s explanation that he “has basically no grip” in his right arm is meant to
imply that he could not have caused Gidley’s injury. Transcript Vol. 2 at 16.
[9] Gates asks us to reweigh the evidence and evaluate witness credibility, which
we will not do. The extent of Gates’s claimed disability was questioned at trial.
The determination of whether or not Gates could use his right hand was
directly observed and decided by the trial court. Furthermore, Ragen’s
testimony supports the judgment. Although he was unsure about some details,
Ragan’s testimony of the incident was unequivocal. Ragen placed Gates at the
scene and stated that he saw Gates, whom he knew well, strike Gidley once in
the face. Officer Overton’s own observations revealed that Gidley had a small
injury to his left cheek.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-119 | July 16, 2020 Page 4 of 5
[10] The state aptly concluded that this is a case that would be determined by
competing witness credibility. However, it is not for this court to evaluate
witness credibility. It is the duty of the fact finder “to determine not only whom
to believe, but also what portions of conflicting testimony to believe.” Perry v.
State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 8 (Ind. App. 2017) (quoting Wood v. State, 999 N.E.2d 1054,
1064 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied (2014), cert. denied).
[11] Judgment affirmed.
Bailey, J. and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-119 | July 16, 2020 Page 5 of 5