MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Sep 25 2017, 10:38 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Valerie K. Boots Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Henry A. Flores, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Curtis Richards, September 25, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1611-CR-2560
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Christina
Appellee-Plaintiff. Klineman, Judge
The Honorable Travis Sandifur,
Pro Tempore
Trial Court Cause No.
49G17-1512-F6-42945
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1611-CR-2560 | September 25, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary and Issue
[1] Following a bench trial, Curtis Richards was convicted of battery resulting in
serious bodily injury, a Level 5 felony; strangulation, a Level 6 felony; and
domestic battery in the presence of a child, a Level 6 felony. Richards now
appeals, raising one issue for our review: whether there was sufficient evidence
to support his conviction of battery resulting in serious bodily injury. 1
Concluding the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On the evening of December 2, 2015, Richards and Raimona Harris began
arguing in Harris’ home. Their argument escalated and an altercation ensued,
resulting in Richards choking Harris. Harris attempted to stop Richards by
hitting and pushing him. After a brief pause in their fight, the couple began
arguing again and Richards pinned Harris down on the couch and placed his
hands around her neck. One of Harris’ children observed Richards “swinging
at her” and Harris recalled “seeing this white light, like I had got hit.”
Transcript, Volume 2 at 103, 142. Following the fight, Harris’ right eye was
bleeding and her vision was blurry.
[3] As a result of the fight, Harris suffered a right orbital bone fracture and a
laceration to her eyelid. The laceration required sutures and Harris underwent
1
Richards does not dispute his convictions for strangulation and domestic battery.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1611-CR-2560 | September 25, 2017 Page 2 of 5
surgery to repair her orbital bone. Due to the fracture and surgery, Harris had
various complications with her eye including swelling, bleeding, accumulation
of pus, and infection, requiring multiple visits to the emergency room. Harris
was prescribed pain medication and antibiotic ointment to alleviate the pain.
[4] The State charged Richards with battery resulting in serious bodily injury, a
Level 5 felony; strangulation, a Level 6 felony; domestic battery in the presence
of a child, a Level 6 felony; and battery, a Class A misdemeanor. Following a
bench trial, the trial court found Richards guilty on all counts and entered
judgment of conviction for battery resulting in serious bodily injury,
strangulation, and domestic battery.2 The trial court sentenced Richards to an
aggregate three-year sentence; one and one-half years served in home detention
with the remaining time suspended to probation. Richards now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[5] In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, this court will not reweigh evidence or assess the credibility of
witnesses. Holloway v. State, 51 N.E.3d 376, 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans.
denied. We consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment together
2
The trial court merged Richards’ conviction for battery as a Class A misdemeanor with his conviction for
battery resulting in serious bodily injury.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1611-CR-2560 | September 25, 2017 Page 3 of 5
with all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Id. We will affirm
a conviction if a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty
based on the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.
Id.
II. Serious Bodily Injury
[6] Richards’ sole argument is there is insufficient evidence to support Richards’
conviction for battery resulting in serious bodily injury. Specifically, Richards
asserts the State failed to present evidence Harris suffered a serious bodily
injury.3
[7] Indiana law defines “serious bodily injury” as a “bodily injury that creates a
substantial risk of death or that causes . . . (1) serious permanent disfigurement;
(2) unconsciousness; (3) extreme pain; (4) permanent or protracted loss or
impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or (5) loss of a fetus.”
Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-292. “Protracted” means to “draw out or lengthen in
time” and “impairment” means “the fact or state of being damaged, weakened,
or diminished.” Mann v. State, 895 N.E.2d 119, 122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
There is no bright line rule in determining what is a “bodily injury” 4 and what is
a “serious bodily injury,” and our appellate courts give considerable deference
3
A battery resulting in “serious bodily injury” elevates what would otherwise be a Class A misdemeanor to a
Level 5 felony. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(f)(1) (2014).
4
“Bodily injury” is defined as “any impairment of physical condition, including physical pain.” Ind. Code §
35-31.5-2-29.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1611-CR-2560 | September 25, 2017 Page 4 of 5
to the trier-of-fact’s determination that a bodily injury is a “serious bodily
injury.” Davis v. State, 813 N.E.2d 1176, 1178 (Ind. 2004).
[8] Here, as a result of Richards’ actions, Harris suffered a bloody eye and blurry
vision. After being in the emergency room for several hours, Harris was
diagnosed with a fractured orbital bone and a laceration to the eye requiring
sutures to heal. Harris’ fractured orbital bone required surgery to repair and
that healing process was impaired by swelling, bleeding, and an accumulation
of pus, requiring multiple visits to the emergency room over several months.
Further, Harris was discharged from the emergency room with a prescription
pain medication. We conclude sufficient evidence exists for a reasonable fact-
finder to determine Harris suffered a serious bodily injury. See Mendenhall v.
State, 963 N.E.2d 553, 569-70 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (holding evidence victim’s
right eye was swollen shut and he suffered from a displaced zygomatic arch
fracture and a right orbital fracture was sufficient to show he suffered protracted
loss or impairment of his right eye), trans. denied.
Conclusion
[9] Richards’ conviction for battery resulting in serious bodily injury is supported
by sufficient evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.
[10] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1611-CR-2560 | September 25, 2017 Page 5 of 5
Curtis Richards v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion