Opinion ID: 852336
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Evidence to Support Battery

Text: To convict Bailey of battery, the State was required to prove he knowingly or intentionally touche[d] another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Ind.Code § 35-42-2-1 (2008). The charging information specified that Bailey knowingly touched Assistant Principal Brewer. Indiana's General Assembly has defined knowingly: (b) A person engages in conduct knowingly if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so. Ind.Code § 35-41-2-2 (2008). Bailey contends he did not knowingly touch Brewer. [1] Assistant Principal Brewer testified she put [her] arm out to tell him he needed to leave if he wasn't going to comply and he pushed through my arm. (Tr. at 11.) She explained that Bailey did not use his hands, but used his body to push through her arm. (Tr. at 11-12.) Dean Knight testified he was ten to fifteen feet away when he observed Bailey, who pushed his way through Miss Brewer, who had put her arm out. (Tr. at 14.) The trier of fact could infer Bailey's push or physical movement of disrespect, indicating he was not going to comply with Brewer's request, constituted a knowing touching in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Moreover, Bailey's own testimony provided an inference that a knowing touching occurred in an angry or insolent manner. Bailey initially insisted that he did not touch Brewer: I didn't touch her or nothing, you know. I had my hands down. I was just walking through. (Tr. at 23.) Upon cross-examination, however, he conceded that although he did not touch her using his hands, he may have touched her with another part of his body. Prosecutor: But did you touch her arm? Bailey: No, ma'am. Prosecutor: Not with your body? Bailey: No. I had my hand down. I was pulling my pants. Prosecutor: Would some other part of your body have touched her arm? Bailey: I mean, she had it right there. Court: Your answer was what? I didn't hear you. Bailey: Yes. She had it right there. She had her arm there. (Tr. at 25.) Bailey also admitted being angry when he interacted with Brewer. (Tr. at 26.) How close Bailey was to Assistant Principal Brewer at the moment she extended her arm is a legitimate question of fact bearing on whether Bailey committed a knowing touching. Here, the testimony by the school staff and by Bailey provided the trier of fact with sufficient evidence to conclude Bailey was aware that Assistant Principal Brewer's arm barred his way and knowingly pushed through it. We conclude the State proved a knowing touching in a rude, insolent, or angry manner.