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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

ANN M. SUTTON GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana

RICHARD C. WEBSTER

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

GERMAN ESPICHAN, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 49A05-1310-CR-515

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Clayton A. Graham, Judge

Cause No. 49G17-1308-CM-56197

June 20, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BAILEY, Judge
2

Case Summary

After a bench trial, German Espichan (“Espichan”) was convicted of Battery, as a 

Class B misdemeanor.1 He now appeals, raising for our review a single question, which we 

reframe as whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

In the early morning hours of August 25, 2013, Espichan and his long-time girlfriend, 

Yanire Aguilar (“Aguilar”), had been at a nightclub in downtown Indianapolis. At some 

point, Aguilar yelled and ran across a street, with Espichan chasing her. Espichan struck her 

once on the face, and Aguilar fell to the ground. Espichan then struck Aguilar two more 

times.

Having observed these events, a security guard at a nearby business, Richard Talley 

(“Talley”), ran across the street and separated Espichan and Aguilar. Espichan became 

hostile toward Talley, and Talley called the police. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police 

Department Officer William Payne (“Officer Payne”) spoke with all three individuals. 

Officer Payne observed no injuries on Aguilar. Ultimately, Officer Payne arrested Espichan.

On August 25, 2013, the State charged Espichan with Battery, as a Class B 

misdemeanor.

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a).
3

On October 1, 2013, a bench trial was conducted. At its conclusion, the trial court 

found Espichan guilty of Battery, as charged, and sentenced him to 180 days imprisonment, 

with all but four days suspended to probation.

This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

On appeal, Espichan raises a single issue for our review, whether there was sufficient 

evidence to sustain his conviction. Our standard of review in such cases 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 assess the credibility of witnesses or 

reweigh evidence. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could 

find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Jenkins v. 

State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000)). “The evidence is sufficient if an inference may 

reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.” Id. (quoting Pickens v. State, 751 

N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)).

Espichan was charged with Battery, as a B misdemeanor. To convict him of the 

offense as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Espichan 

knowingly touched Aguilar in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. See I.C. § 35-42-2-1(a); 

App’x at 14.

The evidence that favors the verdict indicates that Talley observed Aguilar running 

across the street after hearing someone yelling. Talley testified that he saw Espichan running 

after her and strike her once. Talley also testified that he saw Espichan strike Aguilar twice 
4

more with a closed fist after Aguilar fell to the ground. Talley testified that after he moved to 

intervene, Espichan became angry with him, as a result of which Talley called police. While 

Talley testified that he thought he saw bruises on Aguilar’s face, Officer Payne testified that 

he did not see any injuries; nevertheless, he arrested Espichan.

In his appeal, Espichan contends that there was insufficient evidence of his having 

struck Aguilar because at trial, neither Espichan’s nor Aguilar’s testimonies established any 

facts indicative of Espichan having struck Aguilar. Only Talley, whom Espichan contends 

was a “rookie bouncer” who “may have thought he was rescuing a damsel in distress,” 

provided testimony that indicates Espichan battered Aguilar on the night of August 25, 2013. 

(Appellant’s Br. at 5.) Espichan’s brief goes on to question Talley’s perception of events as 

being inconsistent with the physical evidence, and notes that Aguilar had no apparent 

injuries. Yet the statute under which Espichan was charged does not require any injuries for 

the State to obtain a conviction.

Simply put, Espichan asks that we reweigh evidence, even as he denies making any 

such request. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.

Affirmed.

KIRSCH, J., and MAY, J., concur.