Opinion
23A-CR-2573
04-15-2024
Terry A. Smith, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Timothy J. O'Connor O'Connor & Auersch Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Steven J. Hosler Deputy Attorney General Thomas Alexander Tuck Certified Legal Intern Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court Trial Court Cause No. 49D31-2307-F5-20467 The Honorable Peggy R. Hart, Magistrate Judge
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Timothy J. O'Connor O'Connor & Auersch Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Steven J. Hosler Deputy Attorney General Thomas Alexander Tuck Certified Legal Intern Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Crone, Judge
Case Summary
[¶1] Terry A. Smith appeals his conviction for class A misdemeanor interference with reporting of a crime. He contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] On July 19, 2023, Smith slapped his girlfriend C.B. in the face. He continued to hit her in the head as she pleaded with him to stop. C.B. eventually fled the home and called 911. When police arrived, they could not locate Smith, who had locked C.B. outside of her home. After the police left, C.B. re-entered the home through an unlocked window. She discovered Smith in a bed and laid down next to him. Smith jumped up as if he had just been pretending to sleep. He began yelling and cursing at C.B., as well as hitting her. C.B. again called 911. She was only able to give the operator her address and say she needed help before Smith grabbed her phone from her hands. C.B. ran to hide in the bathroom. Smith instructed her to turn off the lights and not answer the door when police arrived. C.B. did not obey those instructions, and she answered the door when police arrived. Officers arrested Smith.
[¶3] The State charged Smith with level 5 felony domestic battery, level 5 felony battery, level 6 felony criminal confinement, and class A misdemeanor interference with reporting of a crime. A bench trial was held on September 20, 2023. After the State's case-in-chief, Smith moved for a directed verdict on all counts. The trial court granted Smith's motion as to the criminal confinement charge. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found Smith guilty of the three remaining counts. Thereafter, the trial court merged the battery offenses and sentenced Smith to concurrent sentences of three and a half years for battery and one year for interference with reporting of a crime. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[¶4] Smith challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his interference with reporting of a crime conviction. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Anderson v. State, 37 N.E.3d 972, 973 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015), trans. denied. We view all evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the conviction. Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724, 726 (Ind. 2013). On appeal, it is not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). We must affirm if the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Anderson, 37 N.E.3d at 974.
[¶5] To convict Smith of class A misdemeanor interference with reporting of a crime as charged, the State was required to prove that Smith, with the intent to conceal the commission of a crime, knowingly or intentionally interfered with or prevented C.B. from using a 911 emergency telephone system. Ind. Code § 35-45-2-5(1). "A person engages in conduct 'intentionally' if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so." Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(a). "A person engages in conduct 'knowingly' if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so." Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2-(b). A defendant's intent can be proved by circumstantial evidence, and the factfinder can infer intent "from a defendant's conduct and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically and reasonably points." Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018).
[¶6] Smith's sole assertion is that the State failed to prove that he actually interfered with C.B.'s report to 911. Here, C.B. testified that she dialed 911 after Smith began yelling and cursing at her, as well as hitting her. After connecting with an operator, C.B. was only able to convey her address and that she needed help before Smith grabbed her phone from her hand and terminated the call. It is clear from the record that C.B. was unable to provide the operator with her name, the reason she needed assistance, Smith's identity, or any other vital information that the operators are trained to obtain when a crime is being reported. Smith suggests that C.B. had completed the purpose of her 911 call when he grabbed her phone because there is no evidence that she intended to provide the 911 operator with any additional information. This is simply a request for this Court to reassess and reweigh the evidence in his favor, which we may not do. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the conviction, we conclude that a reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith knowingly interfered with C.B.'s reporting of a crime when he grabbed her phone and terminated the 911 call before she had the opportunity to complete the purpose of her call. Sufficient evidence supports Smith's conviction.
[¶7] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Pyle, J., concur.