Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1855 | January 23, 2018 Page 1 of 8

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

Kurt A. Young

Nashville, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 

Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. MacKenzie

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Eric Reed Johnson, Sr.,

Appellant-Defendant, 

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

 January 23, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No. 

49A02-1708-CR-1855 

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court 

The Honorable Christina R.

Klineman, Judge 

Trial Court Cause No. 

49G17-1704-F6-12280 

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1855 | January 23, 2018 Page 2 of 8

[1] Eric Reed Johnson, Sr., appeals his conviction for strangulation as a level 6 

felony. Johnson raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the 

evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 1, 2017, Johnson was at the apartment of Lori Harris while she went 

out to eat with a friend. Johnson and Harris had met using a dating site just 

before Christmas and he stayed at her home sometimes. Harris returned home 

and slept on the couch. The following morning, Johnson asked Harris what 

was going on, and Harris told him that things were not fine and asked him if he 

remembered telling her that, if she did not feel comfortable, she could take him 

back to the house of a woman with whom he used to stay. Johnson became 

upset, stated he “was sick and tired of women always doing this to him because 

he doesn’t have a car.” Transcript Volume 2 at 9. Harris asked Johnson if his 

mother would appreciate him saying that and later if his son would respect him 

like this, and Johnson said “[d]on’t you dare ever mention my son” and struck 

Harris on the side of her face. Id. at 10. Harris felt extreme pain and “thought 

something broke in there.” Id. Johnson stated “I’ll shut your mouth” and 

forced an entire cigar into Harris’s mouth and broke and crumbled it in her 

mouth. Id. at 13. He also said that he would shatter her teeth. 

[3] Harris went into the bedroom, started to remove Johnson’s things from a 

dresser, and told him that she wanted him to leave, and Johnson told Harris not 

to touch his stuff and pushed her on the bed. Harris then exited the bedroom 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1855 | January 23, 2018 Page 3 of 8

and went toward the front door. At some point, Johnson said “[y]ou’re not 

going anywhere until we get this straightened out, and I’m not going anywhere 

either.” Id. at 14. Johnson grabbed Harris, placed his arm around her neck 

from behind her, and started to choke her. It was difficult for Harris to swallow 

or breathe and she urinated on herself and “everything was going black.” Id. at 

12. She ended up on the ground. Johnson said “[y]ou’re not gonna [] do this to 

me.” Id. at 13. He smacked her with his foot on the side of her leg. At some 

point, Johnson left the apartment, and Harris drove to the hospital where 

photographs were taken of her injuries. 

[4] On April 6, 2017, the State charged Johnson with strangulation and 

confinement as level 6 felonies and domestic battery and battery resulting in 

bodily injury as class A misdemeanors. The court held a bench trial at which it 

heard testimony from Harris, Johnson, and the police officer who took an 

initial report from Harris and admitted photographs of her injuries taken at the 

hospital. Harris testified that she had been diagnosed with leukemia in August 

of 2016, that treatment had stopped and she was in remission as of April 1, 

2017, and that her injuries as depicted in the admitted photographs were caused 

by Johnson and not by leukemia. 

[5] Johnson testified that “the whole thing predicated on a sexual encounter and 

then it escalated into a bit of both of our pasts and drugs were involved.” Id. at 

37-38. He testified that, every payday for ten weeks, Harris spent money on 

crack cocaine. He testified that Harris was upset with him on the night of the 

incident because he would not find crack cocaine for her. Johnson indicated 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1855 | January 23, 2018 Page 4 of 8

that he did not place his hands on Harris. He testified that Harris had gone to 

the doctor two weeks before the incident for the bruising on her cheek and jaw. 

The trial court stated that it did not find Johnson’s “story to be reasonable or 

credible” and found “it all to be completely fabricated.” Id. at 55. It found 

Johnson guilty as charged and sentenced him to concurrent one-year terms for 

each of his convictions with credit for time served and the balance suspended to 

probation. 

Discussion

[6] The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to support Johnson’s conviction

for strangulation as a level 6 felony.

1

 When reviewing the sufficiency of the

evidence to support a conviction, we must 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 witness credibility or reweigh the 

evidence. Id. We consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial 

court’s ruling. Id. We affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder 

could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to 

support the verdict. Id. at 147. The uncorroborated testimony of one witness

can be sufficient to sustain a conviction. Ferrell v. State, 565 N.E.2d 1070, 1072-

1073 (Ind. 1991). 

 

1

Johnson does not challenge his other convictions. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1855 | January 23, 2018 Page 5 of 8

[7] Ind. Code § 35-42-2-9 provided in part at the time of the offense that a person 

who, in a rude, angry, or insolent manner, knowingly or intentionally “applies 

pressure to the throat or neck of another person” or “obstructs the nose or 

mouth of the another [sic] person . . . in a manner that impedes the normal 

breathing or the blood circulation of the other person” commits strangulation as 

a level 6 felony. (Subsequently amended by Pub. L. No. 252-2017, § 11 (eff. 

Jul. 1, 2017)). The State alleged that Johnson, in a rude, insolent or angry 

manner, did knowingly apply pressure to the throat or neck, or obstruct the 

nose or mouth, of Harris in a manner that impeded her normal breathing or 

blood circulation. 

[8] Johnson asserts the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for 

strangulation due to the incredibly dubious testimony provided by Harris. He 

argues Harris was the only person to testify as to the events giving rise to the 

charges and that the officer who obtained Harris’s report testified that she did 

not mention urinating on herself, the cigar, or that Johnson had strangled her. 

He also argues that Harris’s bruising could have been the result of her leukemia 

or treatment. 

[9] The State maintains that Harris’s testimony was corroborated by the existence 

of her injuries, it was internally consistent, and notes that the trial court found 

Johnson’s testimony to be completely fabricated. The State further argues that 

it is irrelevant whether Harris mentioned at the earlie st opportunity that she 

had been strangled, that the officer who took the initial report from Harris 

testified that he transferred the case to a detective for further investigation, and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1855 | January 23, 2018 Page 6 of 8

that the probable cause affidavit reveals that Harris told law enforcement about 

the chokehold and strangulation in a more detailed interview on April 3, 2017. 

[10] “[W]hen appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must 

consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling,” Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146 

(internal quotation marks omitted), and the uncorroborated testimony of one 

witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Ferrell, 565 N.E.2d at 1072-1073. 

To the extent Johnson asserts that the incredible dubiosity rule requires reversal 

of his conviction, we note that the rule applies only in very narrow 

circumstances. See Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2002). The rule is 

expressed as follows:

If a sole witness presents inherently improbable testimony and 

there is a complete lack of circumstantial evidence, a defendant’s 

conviction may be reversed. This is appropriate only where the 

court has confronted inherently improbable testimony or coerced, 

equivocal, wholly uncorroborated testimony of incredible

dubiosity. Application of this rule is rare and the standard to be 

applied is whether the testimony is so incredibly dubious or 

inherently improbable that no reasonable person could believe it. 

Id.

[11] Johnson fails to show that Harris’s testimony was inherently contradictory or so 

inherently improbable that no reasonable person could believe it. To the extent 

her testimony conflicted with Johnson’s testimony, this is an issue of witness 

credibility. The court heard testimony from Harris and Johnson and admitted 

photographic evidence of Harris’s injuries, and the witnesses were thoroughly 

examined and cross-examined. Harris testified that Johnson grabbed her, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1855 | January 23, 2018 Page 7 of 8

placed his arm around her neck from behind her, and choked her. When asked 

if Johnson applied pressure, she testified “[s]o much pressure that it was hard to 

swallow, hard to breathe” and “I urinated all over myself because of the 

pressure and everything was going black.” Transcript Volume 2 at 12. She 

testified that her neck hurt and it was difficult to swallow her own saliva. She 

testified that she was in remission for leukemia, she no longer received 

treatment at the time of the offense, and her injuries were caused by Johnson. 

We also note that, although the officer who took an initial report at the hospital 

indicated that Harris did not mention urinating, a cigar, or that Johnson had 

strangled her, the officer testified that after he files his report the case is assigned 

to a detective, and the probable cause affidavit indicated a detective interviewed 

Harris on April 3, 2017. At that time Harris reported that she had urinated on 

herself and that Johnson had placed her in a chokehold and choked her so hard 

that she was struggling to breathe. The trial court as the trier of fact was free to 

believe the testimony of Harris and disbelieve the testimony of Johnson. 

Further, the trier of fact was able to assess Harris’s testimony in light of the 

testimony regarding her prior medical diagnosis and treatment and the 

photographic evidence. The trial court specifically found that Johnson’s story 

was not reasonable or credible and found that his testimony was completely 

fabricated. Johnson does not show how the testimony against him was 

somehow internally inconsistent and has not shown Harris’s testimony to be 

incredibly dubious. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1855 | January 23, 2018 Page 8 of 8

[12] Based upon the evidence most favorable to the trial court’s ruling as set forth 

above and in the record, we conclude that the trial court as the trier of fact 

could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson committed the offense of 

strangulation as a level 6 felony. 

Conclusion

[13] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Johnson’s conviction. 

[14] Affirmed. 

Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.