Court Opinion

ID: 9718343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:21:22.922135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:58.656119
License: Public Domain

KIRSCH, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully concur in Parts I and II of the decision of my colleagues regarding the admission of the evidence and the challenged jury instruction, but I respectfully dissent from their decision finding the evidence sufficient to convict Lewis of robbery as a Class B felony. To convict Lewis of robbery as a Class B felony as charged, the State was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally took property from Engelking or from the presence of Engelking by using or threatening force or putting Engelking in fear, which resulted in bodily injury. Ind.Code § 35-42-5-1. “Bodily injury” is defined as “any impairment of physical condition, including physical pain.” Ind.Code § 35^11-1-4. Lewis contends that because Engelking never testified that he suffered any pain and presented no other evidence of the impairment of any physical condition, the evidence was insufficient to prove that En-gelking suffered any bodily injury.
At trial, Engelking testified that Lewis punched him in the face “pretty hard” and “it didn’t feel good.” Tr. at 76. However, Engelking never testified that he experienced any pain as a result of being punched in the face; instead, when asked by the State if it hurt when he was punched by Lewis, Engelking stated that he did not think about it because his “adrenalin was running.” Id. Lewis argues that these denials of pain render the evidence insufficient. I agree. The State failed to elicit any evidence that Engelking suffered pain as a result of being hit by Lewis, failed to follow up on his answers, and failed to put on any other evidence of pain experienced by Engelking.
The trier of fact could only speculate as to whether the punch amounted to pain. Such speculation is not a reasonable inference drawn from the evidence presented and does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the touching by Lewis resulted in bodily injury to Engelk-ing in the form of pain. It is as reasonable to speculate that Engelking’s adrenaline rush blocked any sensation of pain and this is what he testified. I would vacate Lewis’s conviction for robbery as a Class B felony and remand with instructions to enter a conviction for robbery as a Class C *437felony and to resentence Lewis accordingly.