Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1703-CR-545| August 31, 2017 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

Thomas C. Allen

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Katherine Cooper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ricky W. Outlaw,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 31, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A05-1703-CR-545

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Wendy W. Davis, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

02D04-1609-F6-1029

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1703-CR-545| August 31, 2017 Page 2 of 4

Statement of the Case

[1] Ricky Outlaw appeals his conviction by jury of Class A misdemeanor battery.

1

 

His sole argument is that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Concluding that the evidence is sufficient, we affirm Outlaw’s battery 

conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

The sole issue for our review is whether there is sufficient 

evidence to support Outlaw’s battery conviction.

Facts

[3] On September 9, 2016, Cameron Caplinger (“Caplinger”) and Chad Buzzard 

(“Buzzard”) were working as loss prevention officers at a Sears store located in 

a Fort Wayne shopping mall. As they monitored the surveillance cameras, 

Caplinger observed Outlaw pick up a shoe box from a shoe display, place the 

box under his arm, and walk out of the store without paying for the 

merchandise.

[4] Caplinger and Buzzard caught up with Outlaw as he left the store and asked 

him to return. Outlaw began to comply and then suddenly turned to run. 

 

1

IND. CODE § 35-42-2-1. Outlaw was also convicted of Level 6 felony theft; however, he does not appeal that 

conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1703-CR-545| August 31, 2017 Page 3 of 4

When Buzzard grabbed Outlaw, Outlaw punched Buzzard in the back of the 

head with his fist, stating “you can’t touch me, get your hands off me.” (Tr. 

Vol. 2 at 177). Caplinger saw Outlaw “turn around and strike [Buzzard] in the 

head.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 123).

[5] The State charged Outlaw with theft and battery. At trial, Outlaw testified that 

when Buzzard grabbed him, he stumbled backwards and unintentionally made 

contact with Buzzard. The jury convicted Outlaw as charged, and Outlaw 

appeals the battery conviction.

Decision

[6] Outlaw argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his battery 

conviction. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well 

settled. We 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 reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We will affirm the 

conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the crime 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is sufficient if an 

inference may be reasonably drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. at 147. 

[7] In order to convict Outlaw of battery as a Class A misdemeanor, the State had 

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally touched 

Buzzard in a rude, insolent or angry manner resulting in bodily injury. See I.C.

§ 35-42-2-1. Outlaw acknowledges that he touched Buzzard but disputes that 

he knowingly or intentionally did so. He specifically contends that he “lost his 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1703-CR-545| August 31, 2017 Page 4 of 4

balance and accidentally made contact with the loss prevention officer as he 

stumbled backwards.” (Outlaw’s Br. 10). According to Outlaw, an “accidental 

hitting is consistent with what would be expected. . . . When someone loses 

their balance, they generally use their arms to counter balance their momentum 

and weight and their arms will flail about.” (Outlaw’s Br. 10-11).

[8] However, our review of the evidence reveals that Buzzard testified that Outlaw 

used his fist to punch Buzzard in the back of the head, stating “you can’t touch 

me, get your hands off me.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 177). Caplinger also testified that he 

saw Outlaw turn around and strike Buzzard in the head. This evidence is 

sufficient to support Outlaw’s battery conviction. Outlaw’s argument that he 

accidentally hit Buzzard in the head is an invitation for us to reweigh the 

evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot and will not 

do. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146.

[9] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Robb, J., concur.