Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1312| December 16, 2020 Page 1 of 6

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

Frederick Vaiana 

Voyles Vaiana Lukemeyer Baldwin & 

Webb

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Megan M. Smith 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tamika Ballance,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Defendant.

December 16, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-1312

Appeal from the Marion Superior

Court

The Honorable Angela D. Davis, 

Judge

The Honorable H. Patrick 

Murphy, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No. 

49G16-2001-F6-1290

Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1312| December 16, 2020 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Tamika Ballance was involved in an altercation at the IndyGo bus terminal, 

during which she bit Diane Ford. Though Ford was not present at trial, a 

security officer who observed the incident, testified as to the victim’s identity

and Ballance was convicted of Class B misdemeanor battery. On appeal, 

Ballance claims that the in-court identification of the victim constituted a 

fundamental error and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the

conviction. Because we disagree, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 10, 2020, Ballance and Ford were involved in an altercation at the 

IndyGo bus terminal (Tr. 4-5). During that altercation, Ballance bit Ford on 

the wrist and attempted to pull a phone from Ford’s hands. Ballance was 

charged with Level 6 felony domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor theft

(App. Vol. II, 31). Ford was not present at Balance’s trial which was held on 

June 22, 2020. Isiah Hagemeyer, a security officer who observed the altercation

and Ballance bite Ford, was the only witness to testify (Tr. 3). While testifying, 

Hagemeyer could not initially recall the name of the victim (Tr. 6). The State 

entered a photo of the alleged victim, taken at the IndyGo bus terminal on the 

day of the incident, which Hagemeyer identified to be the victim (Tr. 6).

Hagemeyer testified that he would have written up a report about the incident

and asked for the victim’s name before writing the report (Tr. 7). The State 

then introduced Ford’s certified driver’s record from the Bureau of Motor
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1312| December 16, 2020 Page 3 of 6

Vehicles (“BMV”), which contained a photograph of Ford. (Tr. 7-8; State’s Ex. 

2). After reviewing Ford’s driver’s record, Hagemeyer identified Ford as the 

same woman Ballance bit and stated he recognized Ford’s name as the name of 

the victim (Tr. 8). Ballance made no objections to Hagemeyer’s identification 

or to the State’s exhibits (Tr. 7-8). The trial court found that the State had failed 

to provide any evidence of a domestic relationship between Ballance and Ford

or sufficient evidence of theft. However, the trial court found that the State had 

proven that Ballance had committed the lesser-included offense of Class B 

misdemeanor battery (Tr. 14-16).

Discussion and Decision

I. Fundamental Error

[3] “The decision to admit or exclude evidence at trial is squarely within a trial 

court’s discretion and should be afforded great deference on appeal.” Carpenter 

v. State, 786 N.E.2d 696, 702 (Ind. 2003). We will only “disturb [a trial court’s]

rulings only where it is shown that the court abused its discretion.” Camm v. 

State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 225 (Ind. 2009). “A claim that has been waived by a 

defendant’s failure to raise a contemporaneous objection can be reviewed on 

appeal if the reviewing court determines that a fundamental error has 

occurred.” Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010). “The ‘fundamental 

error’ exception is extremely narrow and applies only when the error constitutes 

a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential harm is substantial, 

and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process.” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1312| December 16, 2020 Page 4 of 6

Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind. 2006) (quoting Boesch v. State, 778 

N.E.2d 1276, 1279 (Ind. 2002)). The error may also be fundamental when it 

“make[s] a fair trial impossible.” Brown, 929 N.E.2d at 207 (quoting Clark v. 

State, 915 N.E.2d 126, 131 (Ind. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). 

[4] No fundamental error occurred during Ballance’s trial. “[A] degree of 

suggestiveness is inherent in all in court identifications;” however, “[w]hether a 

particular identification procedure rises to a level of suggestiveness that 

constitutes reversible error must be determined from the context of the case.” 

Emerson v. State, 724 N.E.2d 605, 609 (Ind. 2000). There is no fundamental 

error simply because Hagemeyer could not initially recall the victim’s name or 

because the evidence introduced to identify the victim was supplied by the 

prosecutor. Ballance also argues that this method of in-court identification is 

too suggestive, due in part to the limited amount of exhibits upon which the 

prosecution relied in making their case. We disagree. Despite Ford not being 

present at trial, Hagemeyer was able to use a photo of the victim taken at the 

IndyGo bus station on the day of the altercation, Ford’s certified driver’s record 

from the BMV, and identify that Ford was the victim he saw Ballance bite. 

Hagemeyer’s identification of Ford was proper, and did not constitute error, let 

alone a fundamental error. 

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[5] “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, 

‘appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1312| December 16, 2020 Page 5 of 6

inferences supporting the verdict.’” Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 

2007) (quoting McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005)) (emphasis in 

original). A conviction will be affirmed unless, after considering all the 

evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the judgement, we conclude 

that no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the crime proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. See Abney v. State, 858 N.E.2d 226, 228 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2006). Further, “[a] verdict will be sustained based on circumstantial 

evidence alone if the circumstantial evidence supports a reasonable inference of 

guilt.” Maul v. State, 731 N.E.2d 438, 439 (Ind. 2000). This standard of review 

does not permit us to reweigh the evidence or allow us to judge the credibility of 

the witnesses. McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 558 (Ind. 2018).

[6] The trial court found that the State’s evidence was insufficient to convict 

Balance of either theft or domestic battery. However, the trial court did find 

sufficient evidence supported Ballance’s conviction for Class B misdemeanor

battery.1Indiana Code section 35-42-2-1 states “a person who knowingly or 

intentionally: touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner[,]” 

commits battery. Hagemeyer testified that he observed Ballance bite Ford –

identifying both during his testimony. “Testimony of a single eyewitness is 

sufficient to sustain a conviction.” Hubbard v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1219, 1219 

(Ind. 1999). We view Ballance’s argument that Hagemeyer’s testimony alone is 

1

See Jones v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1271, 1276–1277 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (stating that battery is a lesser included 

offense of domestic battery). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1312| December 16, 2020 Page 6 of 6

insufficient as an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See 

McCallister, 91 N.E.3d at 558. 

[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.