Court of Appeals of Ind iana | 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.
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Thomas C. Allen Fort Wayne, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE 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 Ca se 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 Ind iana | Memorandum Decision 02A05

- 1703

- CR

- 545 | August 31, 2017 Page 2 of 4 

### S tatement 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, plac e 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 I ND
. C ODE § 35

- 42

- 2

- 1

. Outlaw was also convicted of Level 6 felony theft; however, he does not appeal that conviction.Court of Appeals of Ind iana | Memorandum Decision 02A05

- 1703

- CR

- 545 | August 31, 2017 Page 3 of 4

When Buzzard grabbed O utlaw, Outlaw punched Buzzard in the bac k of the head with his fist , stating “you can’t touch me, get your hands off me.” (Tr. Vo l . 2 at 177)

. Caplinger saw Outlaw “turn around and strike [Buzzard] in the head.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 123).

[5] The State charged Ou tlaw 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 a rgues 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 ev idence 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 hisCourt of Appeals of Ind iana | 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. . . . Whe n someone loses their balance, they generally us e 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 , statin g “you can’t touch me, get your hands off me.” (Tr. Vo l . 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

ac cidentally 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.