Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02

- 1709

- CR

- 2102 | March 29, 2018 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.

A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Barbara J. Simmons Oldenburg, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana
Christina D. Pace Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Shawn Phillips , Appellant

- Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff March 29, 2018 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 49A02

- 1709

- CR

- 2102 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Christina Klineman, Judge Trial Co urt Cause No. 49G17

- 1707

- CM

- 27920

Altice , Judge
. Case SummaryCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02

- 1709

- CR

- 2102 | March 29, 2018 Page 2 of 4

[1] Shawn Phillips challenges his conviction for Class A misdemeanor domestic battery by bodily waste. He claims that the State presented insufficient evidence.

[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History

[3] On July 29, 2017, R.A. was living with and in a romantic relationship with Phillips. As R.A. prepared to go to a baseball game with others , Phillips informed R.A. that he r mother sent a text m essage indicating that she was no longer going to the game. Phillips refused to let R.A. read the message. R.A. “brushed it off and continued getting ready.” Transcript at 8.

[4] When Phillips then went outside, R.A. looked into the parking lot of the
apa rtment complex from her second

- floor balcony. She observed Phillips try to enter her locked car and then go to one of the tires and “start[] letting air out of it” to prevent her from leaving. Id . at 10. R.A. went back inside the apartment to finish get ting ready and figure out how to leave. Phillips came into the bathroom and started urinating in the toilet less than three feet from her. He then turned toward R.A., looked directly at her, and urinated on her right side from her armpit down the whole s ide of her body for several seconds. Phillips then said, “You are no longer leaving. Now get in the shower.” Id . at 11. Flustered, R.A. told Phillips he was disgusting and then grabbed dry clothes and went outside. R.A.’s mother was waiting in the par king lot and called the police.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02

- 1709

- CR

- 2102 | March 29, 2018 Page 3 of 4

[5] Officer Corey Schnick with IMPD responded to the scene and spoke with R.A., who excitedly said, “He peed on me.” Id . at 15. R.A. was wearing a dark shirt, and Officer Schnick observed , as R.A. pulled the shirt away from her body, that “the fabric from her shirt, on her right side, appeared to be heavier than the rest of her shirt.” Id . at 17. He explained at trial that he could not see a difference in the color of the shirt but could tell it was wet “by the look of the, I guess how it was shaking in the breeze.” Id

. Phillips was arrested and charged the following day with domestic battery by bodily waste.

[6] On August 23, 2017, a bench trial was held. Phillips testified briefly in his own defense, denying that he urinat ed on R.A. The trial court considered the conflicting evidence and determined that Phillips was guilty as charged.

Discussion & Decision

[7] Phillips contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he urinated on R.A. Specifically, he notes h is denial and argues that the State presented no photographs of the shirt or the bathroom and no evidence regarding whether there was a urine odor on the shirt or urine on the bathroom floor. Phillips asserts: “This is the classic case of a vindictive gir lfriend making a false accusation

– a she said

- he said matter.” Appellant’s Brief at 8.

[8] When we consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Suggs v. State , 51 N.E.3d 1190, 1193 (Ind. 2016). Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the conviction

. Id

. We will affirm if there isCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02

- 1709

- CR

- 2102 | March 29, 2018 Page 4 of 4

probative evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id

.

[9] We reject Phillips blatant request for us to reweigh the evidence and to judge R.A.’s credibility. Her testimony alone was sufficient to support the conviction. See Bailey v. State , 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012) (“ A con viction can be sustained on only the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even when that witness is the victim.”).

[10] Judgment affirmed.

N ajam, J. and Robb, J., concur.