MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Nov 14 2017, 10:29 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
Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Shontell Ludy, November 14, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1706-CR-1258
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy M. Jones, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff . Trial Court Cause No.
49G08-1508-CM-30426
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
[1] Shontell Ludy appeals her conviction for battery, arguing that the State failed to
present sufficient evidence to rebut her claim of self-defense beyond a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-CR-1258 | November 14, 2017 Page 1 of 2
reasonable doubt. Ludy was a customer at a laundromat in Indianapolis, and
she tased an employee during a dispute over a malfunctioning machine. At a
bench trial, she testified that the employee pushed her and that she tased him in
self-defense. The employee and another customer told a different story,
testifying that the employee did not push Ludy and that the tasing was an
unprovoked attack. The trial court found Ludy guilty as charged, specifically
concluding that the State’s witnesses were more credible than Ludy. Tr. pp. 89-
92. On appeal, Ludy repeats her claim that the laundromat employee pushed
her before she tased him. This is merely a request for us to decide who is more
believable, which is the trier of fact’s role, not ours. Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d
878, 882 (Ind. 2017) (“When reviewing a challenge to sufficiency of the
evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility[.]”).
We therefore affirm Ludy’s conviction.
[2] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-CR-1258 | November 14, 2017 Page 2 of 2