Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-577 | October 20, 2016 Page 1 of 4

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

Timothy J Burns

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ra’Dreeka Gillespie,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 20, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1603-CR-577

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Amy M. Jones, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G08-1503-CM-8473

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-577 | October 20, 2016 Page 2 of 4

Case Summary

[1] Ra’Dreeka Gillespie appeals her conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery. 

We affirm.

Issue

[2] Gillespie raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence is sufficient 

to sustain her conviction.

Facts

[3] Chasia Sutton worked at a Family Dollar store in Marion County. Gillespie 

was dating Sutton’s ex-girlfriend. On January 13, 2015, Gillespie entered the 

store with Sutton’s ex-girlfriend while Sutton was working, and there was a 

verbal exchange between the women. Gillespie and the ex-girlfriend left, and a 

few minutes later, Gillespie returned with three other women. The three 

women entered the store and found Sutton stocking shelves. They poured 

water on Sutton’s head and then began hitting and kicking her. Gillespie joined 

in and stomped on Sutton’s head and side. Keyaira Smith, Sutton’s sister, was 

waiting outside to pick up Sutton. She entered the store and heard screaming 

and fighting. She found Sutton on the ground surrounded by the three women, 

who were fighting with her, and she saw Gillespie watching and laughing. As a 

result of the beating, Sutton had migraines and shoulder pain. 

[4] The State charged Gillespie with Class A misdemeanor battery. After a bench 

trial, Gillespie was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced her to 365 

days in jail with 361 days suspended to probation. Gillespie now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-577 | October 20, 2016 Page 3 of 4

Analysis

[5] Gillespie argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction. 

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to support a criminal 

conviction, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Bailey v. 

State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). “We consider only the evidence 

supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from 

such evidence.” Id. We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative 

value such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant 

was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. 

[6] At the time of the incident, the offense of battery was governed by Indiana 

Code Section 35-42-2-1(b), which provided that “a person who knowingly or 

intentionally: (1) touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner . . 

. commits battery . . . .”1 The offense was a Class A misdemeanor if it resulted

in bodily injury to any other person. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c). Gillespie argues 

that the State failed to present any evidence that she actually hit Sutton. 

According to Gillespie, Sutton’s “version of the events was highly questionable 

. . . .” Appellant’s Br. p. 7. Gillespie argues that it would have been impossible 

for Sutton to see who was hitting her and that Sutton’s testimony conflicted 

with Smith’s testimony. Gillespie contends that Smith only saw Gillespie 

laughing.

 

1 The statute was amended by Pub. L. No. 65-2016, § 33 (eff. July 1. 2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-577 | October 20, 2016 Page 4 of 4

[7] Sutton testified that Gillespie stomped her on the head and side, and the trial 

court found Sutton’s account to be credible. Further, a security camera video of 

the incident was admitted at the trial. The security camera footage is consistent 

with Sutton’s account of the incident. After Sutton was attacked by the three 

women, Gillespie is seen approaching them and making movements consistent 

with kicking Sutton, who was on the ground. After Smith entered the store, 

Gillespie is not seen touching Sutton. Consequently, the security video is also 

consistent with Smith’s testimony. Gillespie’s argument is merely a request that 

we reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we 

cannot do. Bailey, 907 N.E.2d at 1005. The evidence is sufficient to sustain 

Gillespie’s conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery.

Conclusion

[8] The evidence is sufficient to sustain Gillespie’s conviction. We affirm.

[9] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.