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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Barbara J. Simmons

Oldenburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

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 Case No.

49A02-1709-CR-2102

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Christina 

Klineman, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G17-1707-CM-27920

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary
Court 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 her mother sent a text message 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 

apartment 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 getting 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 side 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 parking 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 urinated 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 his 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 girlfriend 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 is 
Court 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 conviction can be 

sustained on only the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even when 

that witness is the victim.”). 

[10] Judgment affirmed.

Najam, J. and Robb, J., concur.