MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 20 2017, 6:13 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Troy D. Warner Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Laura R. Anderson
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Richard Lewis Roethler, September 20, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A03-1704-CR-799
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David P. Matsey,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71D05-1606-CM-3602
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1704-CR-799 | September 20, 2017 Page 1 of 7
[1] Following a bench trial, Richard Lewis Roethler was convicted of class A
misdemeanor domestic battery. On appeal, Roethler contends that the trial
court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence, under the excited
utterance exception, the victim’s hearsay statements to the responding officers.
Roethler also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] After midnight on June 26, 2016, South Bend emergency dispatch received a
911 call from James Vaughn. He indicated that a naked woman had just
approached him outside his home and asked for help. She was in distress and
indicated to Vaughn that she had been beaten up and was able to escape from
the house with her dog. The woman was identified as Christy Jackson.
[4] Officer Steven Noonan arrived on the scene within a few minutes of the call.
Upon his arrival, he encountered Vaughn and Jackson. Jackson was wearing a
shirt that Vaughn had provided to her. She was disheveled and appeared scared
and very upset. Officer Noonan testified that Jackson was still visibly shaking
and clutching her small dog. While speaking with Jackson, Officer Noonan
observed severe bruising to her arms that appeared to be of recent origin.
Jackson informed Officer Noonan that Roethler, her live-in boyfriend, had
grabbed her and thrown her to the ground during an argument and that she lost
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1704-CR-799 | September 20, 2017 Page 2 of 7
consciousness. She indicated that Roethler would not let her leave the
residence but she was able to escape through a back window.
[5] After arresting Roethler inside the home within ten minutes of the dispatch,
Officer Luke Pickard spoke with Jackson. He observed “pretty severe bruising
to both arms”, as well as marks on Jackson’s back and scratches and redness on
her face. Transcript at 24. She was still very upset at this point, crying, shaky,
and scared. Jackson advised Officer Pickard that Roethler, who was
intoxicated at the time, grabbed her by the arms and threw her to the ground
several times that night. Jackson reported that at some point during the attack,
she hit her head and was knocked unconscious. Her shirt was also ripped off
while being thrown around. When she regained consciousness, Roethler
directed her to go to sleep. Jackson went into the bedroom and then escaped
through the window. Officer Pickard observed that a back window to the
residence was open with the drapes and blinds hanging outside of it.
[6] At the bench trial on January 19, 2017, Jackson’s statements from the night of
the incident were admitted through the testimony of Officers Noonan and
Pickard, over Roethler’s objection. The trial court admitted the hearsay
statements under the excited utterance exception. The 911 call was also
admitted into evidence.
[7] Jackson had since recanted her prior statements and, thus, testified on
Roethler’s behalf. She testified that on the night in question she had been on a
three-day “bender” and had been mixing the prescription medication Belsomra
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1704-CR-799 | September 20, 2017 Page 3 of 7
with tequila. Transcript at 42. She attributed her injuries to a prior altercation
with two women and indicated that bite marks on her hands and arms appeared
to be self-inflicted.1 Jackson testified that she did not recall Roethler hurting her
on the night in question. All she remembered was drinking and sleeping.
[8] Officer Nicholas Pogotis testified in rebuttal. He had transported Jackson to the
hospital and spent a significant amount of time with her after the incident.
Officer Pogotis testified that he did not notice anything about Jackson that
would lead him to believe she was intoxicated. He explained that Jackson was
very coherent and able to walk with no issues.
[9] At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court found Roethler guilty as
charged. Roethler was subsequently sentenced to one year executed. He now
appeals.
Discussion & Decision
1. Admission of Evidence
[10] Roethler initially challenges the admission of Jackson’s hearsay statements to
Officers Noonan and Pickard under the excited utterance exception. Our
standard of review in this regard is well-settled. We review evidentiary rulings
for an abuse of discretion, which will be found where the ruling is clearly
1
Regarding the bite marks, Jackson testified: “I believe them to be my teeth marks because I’m missing a
bridge right here. I’m missing two teeth, and they appeared to be mine.” Id. at 46.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1704-CR-799 | September 20, 2017 Page 4 of 7
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Zanders v. State, 73
N.E.3d 178, 181 (Ind. 2017). Further, we will not reweigh the evidence and
will consider conflicting evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s
ruling. Collins v. State, 822 N.E.2d 214, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.
[11] The excited utterance exception, Ind. Evidence Rule 803(2), provides that a
“statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant
was under the stress of excitement that it caused” is not excluded by the rule
against hearsay, regardless of the availability of the declarant as a witness at
trial. In order for a statement to be admitted under this exception, three
elements must be present: (1) a startling event occurred; (2) a statement was
made by a declarant while under the stress of excitement caused by the event;
and (3) the statement relates to the event. Boatner v. State, 934 N.E.2d 184, 186
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010). This is not a mechanical test, and the heart of the inquiry
is whether the declarant was incapable of thoughtful reflection before making
the statement. Id.
[12] Roethler argues that there was insufficient evidence that a startling event
occurred prior to Jackson’s statements to police. In this regard, he relies on
Jackson’s trial testimony that she was drinking heavily and “under the influence
of the hallucinogenic prescription Belsomra.” Appellant’s Brief at 12.
Additionally, in arguing that Jackson’s bruising was not recent, Roethler directs
us to photographs in the record and asserts that “[w]hen one looks…closely, the
bruises are a mosaic of coloration.” Id. at 13. These arguments boil down to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1704-CR-799 | September 20, 2017 Page 5 of 7
requests for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See Collins, 822
N.E.2d at 218.
[13] The evidence favorable to the trial court’s ruling reveals that Jackson sought
help from Vaughn – a stranger – after exiting an alley unclothed in the middle
of the night. She was in distress and informed Vaughn that she had been beaten
up and had escaped. Police responded within minutes of the dispatch and
found Jackson still shaking, crying, and upset. She had severe bruising on her
arms, which appeared to Officer Noonan to be “recent” and consistent with
“being grabbed”. Transcript at 17. Further, Officer Pogotis offered testimony
refuting Jackson’s later claims that she was intoxicated and under the influence
of Belsomra on the night in question. In light of this evidence, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion by admitting the challenged evidence under the
excited utterance exception.
2. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[14] In a similar vein, Roethler also presents a general sufficiency claim. He
contends that the State failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he
touched Jackson in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Once again, he directs
us to Jackson’s trial testimony regarding her use of alcohol and drugs on the
night in question. Roethler asserts that there is “great credibility” in Jackson’s
testimony and “great reasons to doubt” her statements to police. Appellant’s
Brief at 15. He continues, “the trial testimony of Jackson is credible and aligns
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1704-CR-799 | September 20, 2017 Page 6 of 7
with the evidence in the photos and with the hallucinogenic effect that
Belsomra would have had on her.” Id. at 16.
[15] We reject this blatant request to reweigh the evidence and assess witness
credibility. See Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (observing the
well-established rule that we do not reweigh evidence or assess the credibility of
witnesses in reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim). The factfinder is
obliged to determine not only whom to believe, but also what portions of
conflicting testimony or evidence to believe. Id. Thus, it was wholly within the
trial court’s discretion, as trier of fact, to disbelieve Jackson’s trial testimony
and rely, instead, on her statements made on the night in question. Because
there was ample probative evidence presented from which the trial court could
have found Roethler guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of battering Jackson, we
affirm the conviction.
[16] Judgment affirmed.
Baker, J. and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1704-CR-799 | September 20, 2017 Page 7 of 7
Richard Lewis Roethler v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion