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

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Eric P. Babbs

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael Daugherty,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 23, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A04-1501-CR-19

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Amy M. Jones, 

Judge

Cause No. 49F08-1405-CM-25596

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] Michael Daugherty appeals his conviction for criminal mischief, as a Class B

misdemeanor, following a bench trial. Daugherty presents a single issue for our 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1501-CR-19| July 23, 2015 Page 1 of 4
review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his 

conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Daugherty and Larae Kesler’s granddaughter1 have a child together (“Child”), 

but Kesler’s granddaughter is married to someone else (“Stepfather”). 

Daugherty had filed a “complaint” against Stepfather with the Indiana 

Department of Child Services (“DCS”) in an effort to prevent Stepfather from 

having any contact with Child. Tr. at 5. On May 10, 2014, Daugherty 

“brought the police” and someone from the DCS to Kesler’s Indianapolis 

residence looking for Stepfather and Child, but Kesler stated that they did not 

live there. Later that day, Kesler found Daugherty “standing at [her] bedroom 

window ripping [the] screen and . . . frame out of [the] window.” Id. at 6. 

Kesler called the police, but Daugherty had left the premises by the time the 

police arrived.

[3] The State charged Daugherty with criminal mischief, as a Class B 

misdemeanor. The trial court found him guilty as charged following a bench 

trial, and the court sentenced him to 180 days with 176 days suspended. This 

appeal ensued.

1

 We cannot find any reference to the granddaughter’s name in the record on appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1501-CR-19| July 23, 2015 Page 2 of 4

 
Discussion and Decision

[4] Daugherty contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his 

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

well-settled. Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. 2000).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine only the 

probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the 

verdict. We do not assess witness credibility, nor do we reweigh 

the evidence to determine if it was sufficient to support a 

conviction. Under our appellate system, those roles are reserved 

for the finder of fact. Instead, we consider only the evidence 

most favorable to the trial court ruling and affirm the conviction 

unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the 

crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Pillow v. State, 986 N.E.2d 343, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

[5] To prove criminal mischief, as a Class B misdemeanor, the State was required 

to prove that Daugherty recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damaged or 

defaced the bedroom window screen in Kesler’s home when he “ripp[ed] the 

screen from the window.” Appellant’s App. at 13; Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a)(1). 

At trial, Kesler testified that she saw Daugherty “ripping my screen and my 

frame out of my window.” Tr. at 6.

[6] Daugherty’s sole contention on appeal is that, because Kesler and Daugherty 

were involved in a family dispute, Kesler was “bias[ed]” against him and had a 

“motive” to “punish [him] in retaliation for his filing a DCS complaint against 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1501-CR-19| July 23, 2015 Page 3 of 4
[Stepfather].” Appellant’s Br. at 6. But that contention is a request that we 

reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do. The State presented sufficient 

evidence to support Daugherty’s conviction.

[7] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Barnes, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1501-CR-19| July 23, 2015 Page 4 of 4