Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 1 of 10

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

Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Assistant Section Chief for 

Criminal Appeals

Anna Elcesser

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Charles Samuel Richardson,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 21, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-1356

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Barbara Cook 

Crawford, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G01-1905-F5-018069

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 2 of 10

Statement of the Case

[1] Charles Samuel Richardson appeals his convictions for domestic battery, as a 

Level 5 felony; criminal confinement, as a Level 5 felony; strangulation, as a 

Level 5 felony; and interference with the reporting of a crime, a Class A 

misdemeanor. Richardson raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the 

State presented sufficient evidence to support his convictions. 

[2] We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In March 2019, Richardson began dating Simone Rahier. At that time, 

Richardson lived in a ResCare house with his roommate Derick Benjamin.

1

 

Shortly after they began dating, Rahier moved into the house with Richardson. 

Then, in April, Rahier and Richardson learned that Rahier was pregnant. 

[4] On May 5, Rahier was at home with Richardson, Benjamin, and one ResCare 

worker. That evening, Richardson went through Rahier’s cell phone and 

learned that Benjamin had contacted Rahier via Facebook. Richardson went to 

Benjamin “with a lot of rage,” and the two “had a bit of an argument.” Tr. at 

13. After that argument subsided, Benjamin went to his bedroom, and 

Richardson and Rahier went to theirs. Rahier “verbalized” to Richardson that 

she was “a little bit upset” that he had looked through her phone. Id. At that 

1 Benjamin described ResCare as a program that provides housing for “[p]eople with disabilities.” Tr. at 50. 

The facilities have staff members who provide supervision to the residents. See id. at 52.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 3 of 10

point, Richardson “snatched” the phone from Rahier’s hand and would not 

return it. Id. 

[5] Rahier then left the room and went to the ResCare worker to ask to use that 

person’s phone. However, Richardson told the worker not to let Rahier use the 

phone. Rahier then asked Benjamin if she could use his phone to get a ride out 

of the house, but Richardson threatened Benjamin “pretty violently” if he let 

Rahier use the phone, so Benjamin did not give his phone to Rahier. Id. at 15. 

At that point, Rahier became “uncomfortable” and wanted to leave the house. 

Id. Rahier started to pack her bags to leave, and “that’s when things began to 

get violent.” Id. 

[6] As Rahier attempted to pack her bags, Richardson “slapp[ed]” and “push[ed]” 

her. Id. Rahier kept packing, but Richardson took her belongings out of her 

bags and threw them on the floor. Richardson then got “more and more 

violent.” Id. at 16. As a result, Rahier went outside to again ask the ResCare 

worker to borrow a phone. Richardson followed Rahier outside and “made 

threats so that [she] couldn’t use anybody’s phone.” Id. 

[7] Rahier returned to the house, and the violence “became a little bit more 

intense,” and he started “beating” her. Id. at 19. Throughout the night, 

Richardson “slapped,” “pushed”, “threatened”, and “harassed” Rahier. Id. at 

21. “Several times” throughout the night, Rahier attempted to leave, but 

Richardson “blocked” the door and would not let her exit. Id. at 19. Rahier 

was “sick of” being beaten, so she decided to go to bed and leave the next 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 4 of 10

morning while Richardson was at work. Id. at 20. Once she was in bed, 

Richardson returned the phone to Rahier, and Rahier texted her grandmother 

for help. Richardson then “snatched” the phone back, saw the message to 

Rahier’s grandmother, and sent another message to Rahier’s grandmother 

saying that things were fine. Id. at 21.

[8] Richardson then began to hit Rahier with a “closed fist.” Id. at 22. Rahier left 

the bedroom and went to the living room to look for the ResCare worker. The 

worker was gone, so Rahier asked Benjamin for help. Richardson “threatened” 

Benjamin “pretty violently,” so Benjamin did not help Rahier. Id. Richardson 

then hit Rahier in the head with a closed fist “[t]oo many [times] to remember.” 

Id. 

[9] After a “long time” of getting hit in the living room, Rahier tried to walk away. 

Id. at 23. Richardson followed her and punched her in the stomach two or 

three times. Rahier then attempted “multiple times” to use the fax machine to 

call 9-1-1. Id. at 24. But “every time” Rahier would dial, Richardson would 

“wait for it to ring” then push the “end button.” Id. It was “like a game” to 

Richardson. Id. Richardson then threw Rahier to the ground and continued to 

punch her. 

[10] At some point, Richardson walked away “for a second,” and Rahier went to 

the kitchen to get a knife. Id. at 24. When Richardson returned, she asked him

to stop hitting her. But Richardson hit her again, so she “stabbed” him in the 

shoulder. Id. at 25. Richardson then told Benjamin to call 9-1-1, and Benjamin 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 5 of 10

complied. After Benjamin called 9-1-1, “the worst few minutes of the beating” 

occurred. Id. at 27. Richardson pushed Rahier to the floor and began 

“wailing” on her head with a closed fist. Id. Richardson also put his hands 

around Rahier’s neck and “squeez[ed] hard.” Id. at 38. Rahier told Richardson 

that she could not breathe, but Richardson responded that he “d[idn’t] care.” 

Id. at 31. When the police arrived, Richardson walked away, and Rahier ran 

outside. 

[11] The State charged Richardson with domestic battery, as a Level 5 felony (Count 

1); battery, as a Level 5 felony (Count 2); criminal confinement, as a Level 5 

felony (Count 3); strangulation, as a Level 5 felony (Count 4); domestic battery, 

as a Class A misdemeanor (Count 5); battery, as a Class A misdemeanor 

(Count 6); intimidation, as a Level 6 felony (Count 7); and interference with the 

reporting of a crime, a Class A misdemeanor (Count 8). 

[12] During the ensuing bench trial, Rahier testified about the events that had 

occurred. In addition, Benjamin testified that, on that night, he had heard 

“[f]ighting” between Rahier and Richardson. Id. at 53. He also testified that 

neither he nor the ResCare worker had allowed Rahier to use their phones that 

night because Richardson had told them not to. Richardson then testified that 

Rahier had instigated the fight and that he had acted in self-defense. At the 

conclusion of the trial, the court entered judgment of conviction against 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 6 of 10

Richardson on Counts 1, 3, 4, and 8.2

 The court then sentenced Richardson to 

an aggregate term of four years in the Department of Correction. This appeal 

ensued. 

Discussion and Decision

[13] Richardson asserts that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his 

convictions. Our standard of review on a claim of insufficient evidence is well 

settled:

For a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we look only at the 

probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the 

verdict. Drane v. State, 687 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do 

not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. 

We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder 

could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Id.

Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

Self-Defense

[14] On appeal, Richardson first asserts that the State failed to present sufficient 

evidence to rebut his claims of self-defense as they relate to his convictions for 

domestic battery, as a Level 5 felony, and strangulation, as a Level 5 felony. 

“‘A valid claim of defense of oneself or another person is legal justification for 

2

 The court found Richardson guilty of Counts 2, 5, and 6 but did not enter a judgment of conviction due to 

double jeopardy concerns. The court found him not guilty of Count 7.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 7 of 10

an otherwise criminal act.’” Simpson v. State, 915 N.E.2d 511, 514 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2009) (quoting Hobson v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1118, 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2003)). To prevail on a claim of self-defense, the defendant must show that he 

was in a place where he had a right to be; did not provoke, instigate, or 

participate willingly in the violence; and had a reasonable fear of death or great 

bodily harm. See id. 

[15] When a claim of self-defense is raised and finds support in the evidence, “the 

State has the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Id. The State may meet its burden by either rebutting the 

defense directly or by relying on the sufficiency of the evidence in its case-inchief. Id. Whether the State has met its burden is a question for the trier of 

fact. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind. 1999). We review a challenge to 

the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut such defenses using the same standard as 

for any claim of insufficient evidence. Simpson, 915 N.E.2d at 514.

[16] Here, Richardson asserts that he was legally justified in fighting Rahier because 

he “was in his own home where he had a right to be and[,] from his own 

testimony, was not the initial aggressor[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 15. He further 

contends that, while Rahier claimed in her testimony that she was the victim, 

her version of events “is fraught with inconsistencies and contradictory 

descriptions of the entire scenario.” Id. However, Richardson’s argument is 

simply a request for this Court to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility 

of witnesses, which we cannot do. The evidence most favorable to the trial 

court’s judgment demonstrates that Richardson initiated the altercation, choked 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 8 of 10

Rahier and repeatedly hit her in the head and stomach, and continued fighting 

her even as she attempted to walk away. That evidence is sufficient to show 

that Richardson provoked, instigated, and willingly participated in the fight. 

Accordingly, the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Richardson’s 

claims of self-defense. We affirm Richardson’s convictions for domestic 

battery, as a Level 5 felony, and strangulation, as a Level 5 felony.

Criminal Confinement

[17] Richardson next contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to 

support his conviction for criminal confinement. To convict Richardson of 

criminal confinement, as a Level 5 felony, the State was required to prove that 

he had knowingly or intentionally confined Rahier without her consent and that 

the confinement resulted in bodily injury to Rahier. See Ind. Code § 35-42-3-

3(b)(1) (2020). On appeal, Richardson maintains that the State presented 

insufficient evidence to support that conviction because Rahier’s testimony that 

she was confined contains numerous “inconsistencies.” Appellant’s Br. at 17. 

In addition, he asserts that he did not confine Rahier because Rahier twice left 

the house on the night of the offense—once to speak to the ResCare worker 

outside and once when the officers arrived. Accordingly, he maintains that 

Rahier “could leave and, in fact, did leave the house” such that she was not 

confined. Id. 

[18] Richardson’s arguments on appeal are again an improper request that we 

reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses. The evidence 

most favorable to the judgment demonstrates that Rahier attempted to leave the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 9 of 10

house “[s]everal times” throughout the night, but that Richardson repeatedly 

“blocked” the door. Tr. at 19. And the evidence demonstrates that Rahier 

sustained several injuries while confined. As such, the State presented sufficient 

evidence to demonstrate that Richardson confined Rahier without her consent. 

We affirm his conviction for criminal confinement, as a Level 5 felony.

Interference with the Reporting of a Crime

[19] Finally, Richardson contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to 

support his conviction on Count 8. To prove that Richardson interfered with 

the reporting of a crime, the State was required to show that Richardson, with 

the intent to commit, conceal, or aid in the commission of a crime, knowingly 

or intentionally interfered with or prevented Rahier from using a 9-1-1 

emergency telephone system. See I.C. § 35-45-2-5(1). 

[20] Richardson acknowledges that he hung up the fax machine when Rahier 

attempted to call 9-1-1. But he contends that the State failed to present 

sufficient evidence to support his conviction because, “[a]ccording to [him],”

the fax machine that Rahier used to attempt to call 9-1-1 can only send faxes. 

Appellant’s Br. at 18. But, yet again, his argument on appeal is an improper

request for us to give more weight to his testimony than to Rahier’s. The 

evidence most favorable to the trial court’s judgment demonstrates that 

Richardson took Rahier’s phone from her and prohibited Rahier from using 

either the ResCare worker’s or Benjamin’s phones such that she was unable to

use a phone to call for help. And Rahier testified that she tried “multiple times”

to use the fax machine to call 9-1-1 but that, “every time,” Richardson would 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1356 | December 21, 2020 Page 10 of 10

wait for it to ring and “hit the end button[.]” Tr. at 23-24. That evidence 

supports a reasonable inference that Richardson interfered with or prevented 

Rahier from calling 9-1-1. The State presented sufficient evidence to support his 

conviction for interference with the reporting of a crime. 

[21] In sum, we affirm Richardson’s convictions. 

[22] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Crone, J., concur.