Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-435 | July 16, 2020 Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Christopher Taylor-Price

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Samuel J. Dayton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Donald D. Denson,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 16, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-435

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Angela Dow 

Davis, Judge

The Honorable Hugh Patrick 

Murphy, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G16-1908-F6-31817

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-435 | July 16, 2020 Page 2 of 5

Statement of the Case

[1] Donald Denson (“Denson”) appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, of 

Level 6 felony domestic battery.1 He argues that there is insufficient evidence to 

support his conviction. Concluding that there is sufficient evidence to support 

Denson’s conviction, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Denson’s Level 6 

felony domestic battery conviction.

Facts

[3] At approximately 9:00 p.m. on August 12, 2019, Indianapolis Metropolitan 

Police Officers Kevin Miller (“Officer Miller”) and Adam Moss (“Officer 

Moss”) were dispatched to a disturbance in the hallway of an eastside 

Indianapolis apartment building. The officers approached the building and 

were able to enter through one set of glass doors. However, a second set of 

doors was locked. Although they were unable to open the doors, the officers 

were able to look through glass panels on the doors.

[4] The officers observed Denson and a pregnant C.G. Denson had backed C.G. 

into a hallway corner. He had his hands on her arms and was “shaking her 

1

IND. CODE § 35-42-2-1.3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-435 | July 16, 2020 Page 3 of 5

back and forth.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 18). Denson appeared to be “very angry,” and 

the situation “almost looked like a parent scolding a child.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 18). 

[5] When the officers attempted to open the locked doors and “yelled to [Denson] 

to stop[,]” Denson grabbed C.G.’s arms and pushed her further into the 

building. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 11). C.G. “was frantic.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 11). Another 

apartment building resident unlocked the doors, and the officers entered the 

building and heard an apartment door shut. 

[6] When the officers approached the door, they heard Denson and C.G. arguing. 

The officers knocked at the door and asked Denson and C.G. to open it. When 

C.G. opened the door, Officer Miller “removed her from the doorway and at 

that time the door shut again.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 12). C.G.’s hair was “frazzled,” 

she had “a raspy voice,” and she was crying. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 12). She told the 

officers that she and Denson had been arguing and that the officers “were not 

needed.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 21). Officer Moss convinced Denson to open the door 

and took him into custody.

[7] The State charged Denson with Level 6 felony kidnapping and Class A 

misdemeanor domestic battery. Officers Miller and Moss were the only 

witnesses to testify at trial. At the end of the officers’ testimony, Denson 

stipulated that he had a previous battery conviction, which elevated the 

domestic battery charge from a Class A misdemeanor to a Level 6 felony. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-435 | July 16, 2020 Page 4 of 5

[8] The trial court convicted Denson of Level 6 felony domestic battery and 

sentenced him to 365 days of Community Corrections Home Detention. 

Denson now appeals his conviction. 

Decision

[9] Denson argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for

Level 6 felony domestic battery. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the 

evidence claims is well-settled. We consider only the probative evidence and 

reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 

146 (Ind. 2007). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. 

Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the 

elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is 

sufficient if an inference may be reasonably drawn from it to support the 

verdict. Id. at 147. 

[10] In order to convict Denson of Level 6 felony domestic battery, the State had the 

burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Denson knowingly or 

intentionally touched C.G., a family or household member, in a rude, insolent, 

or angry manner and that Denson had a previous unrelated battery conviction. 

See I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3. 

[11] Here, Denson contends that “[t]he record provided by the State falls short of 

proving beyond a reasonable doubt that [his] touching of C.G. was done in a 

rude, insolent, or angry manner.” (Denson’s Br. 10). However, our review of 

the evidence reveals that Officers Miller and Moss observed Denson with his 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-435 | July 16, 2020 Page 5 of 5

hands on C.G.’s arms. Denson, who appeared to be very angry, was shaking 

C.G. back and forth. When the officers yelled at Denson to stop, Denson 

pushed a frantic C.G. further into the building. When the officers were finally 

able to talk to C.G., her hair was “frazzled,” she had “a raspy voice,” and she 

was crying. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 12). This evidence is sufficient to prove that 

Denson’s touching of C.G. was done in a rude, insolent, or angry manner and 

to support Denson’s conviction for Level 6 felony domestic battery.2

Affirmed.

Bradford, C.J., and Baker, J., concur.

2 Denson also contends that the State failed to present any evidence as to why Denson and C.G. were 

arguing. However, the reason for the argument is not an element of the offense. See Mathis v. State, 859 

N.E.2d 1275, 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). In addition, Denson’s argument that “[t]he officers’ viewpoints were 

impeded by a door which they had to look over and through a glass portion on top to see Denson and C.G.” is a 

request that we reweigh the evidence. (Denson’s Br. 9). This we cannot do. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146.