The opinion
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 18 2020, 9:00 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Stanley L. Campbell Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Steven Hosler
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ronald E. Barrett, September 18, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-580
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David M. Zent,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D06-1909-F5-290
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-580| September 18, 2020 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Ronald E. Barrett appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for level 5
felony domestic battery. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his conviction. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The facts most favorable to the conviction are as follows. Sometime prior to the
summer of 2019, Barrett and then seventeen-year-old Z.R. engaged in a sexual
relationship that resulted in the birth of a daughter in July 2019. Barrett had not
seen their daughter since her birth, so on July 21, 2019, he picked up Z.R. and
their daughter and drove to a relative’s house in Allen County where they
stayed a few hours. When they left, Z.R. and Barrett began arguing. Z.R.
accused Barrett of “running in and out of the house” to use his phone and “not
spending time with [their daughter].” Tr. Vol. 2 at 33. She also became upset
because Barrett was texting while he was driving. When Z.R. attempted to grab
Barrett’s cell phone, he threw it down and then “back fisted” her in the nose
two times. Id. at 34. Barrett pulled the car over, and Z.R. got out of the car
with the baby. Barrett tried to convince Z.R. to get back in the car, but she
refused, so Barrett drove off.
[3] Z.R.’s nose “hurt a lot” and was bleeding. Id. at 35. She started walking with
her daughter and came across a couple on their porch who gave her a ride
home. Z.R. called her mother and grandmother, who convinced her to call 911
and go to the hospital. Fort Wayne Police Department Officer Jeremy Shelley
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-580| September 18, 2020 Page 2 of 5
responded to the 911 call and observed that Z.R. was “crying, fearful,” and
“afraid.” Id. at 58. Officer Shelley also noted that Z.R. had “bruising, redness,
[and] swollenness” around her nose as well as a “small cut on her nose up in
between her eyes.” Id. at 59. When Z.R.’s grandmother saw her after the
incident, she observed that Z.R.’s nose was swollen and “crooked.” Id. at 54.
[4] Z.R.’s injuries consisted of a fractured nose and damage to both sides of her
sinuses which required surgery a few weeks later. Id. 38, 67. After surgery,
Z.R. described her pain as “ten plus.” Id. at 38. Z.R. complained of pain for
two to three weeks after the incident. Id. at 50.
[5] On September 10, 2019, the State charged Barrett with level 5 felony domestic
battery. Barrett filed a waiver of a jury trial and requested a bench trial. He
also waived his right to an attorney and chose to proceed pro se. Following the
bench trial, the trial court found Barrett guilty as charged and imposed a five-
year executed sentence. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Barrett challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. In
reviewing a sufficiency claim, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the
credibility of witnesses. Cannon v. State, 142 N.E.3d 1039, 1042 (Ind. Ct. App.
2020). We consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the
reasonable inferences supporting it. Id. It is “not necessary that the evidence
‘overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’” Drane v. State, 867
N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007) (quoting Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-580| September 18, 2020 Page 3 of 5
1995)). “We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value such
that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009).
[7] To convict Barrett of domestic battery as charged here, the State was required
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he “knowingly or intentionally
touche[d] a family or household member in a rude, insolent, or angry manner.”
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1). Although domestic battery is generally a class A
misdemeanor, the offense becomes a level 5 felony if it resulted in serious
bodily injury to a family or household member. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(c).
“Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of
death or that causes: (1) serious permanent disfigurement; (2) unconsciousness;
(3) extreme pain; (4) permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function
of a bodily member or organ; or (5) loss of a fetus. Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-292.
A “family or household member” includes an individual that “is or was
engaged in a sexual relationship with” the defendant. Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-
128(a).
[8] Barrett first asserts that the State failed to prove that he struck or touched Z.R.
in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. However, Barrett concedes that Z.R.
testified that he got angry with her and twice “back-fisted” her in the nose, Tr.
Vol. 2 at 34, and he acknowledges that a conviction can be sustained upon the
uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even if that witness is the victim.
Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012). Barrett further acknowledges
that “it is not the job of the Appellate Court to re-weigh the evidence or judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-580| September 18, 2020 Page 4 of 5
the credibility of the witnesses.” Appellant’s Br. at 13. Z.R.’s testimony alone is
sufficient to prove that Barrett knowingly or intentionally touched her in a rude,
insolent, or angry manner.
[9] Next, Barrett challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that Z.R.
was a family or household member. Z.R. and Barrett each testified that they
believed that Barrett was the father of Z.R.’s daughter, which clearly supports a
finding that they are or were engaged in a sexual relationship. Barrett admits in
his brief that “given the testimony of [Z.R.], and the concession of Barrett, there
doesn’t seem to be much room for an argument that the State failed to establish
that [Z.R.] was a family or household member.” Id. at 14. Accordingly, any
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in this regard is a nonstarter.
[10] Finally, Barrett asserts that the State failed to prove that Z.R. suffered serious
bodily injury, and therefore his level 5 felony conviction should be reduced to a
class A misdemeanor. The evidence established that Z.R. suffered a fractured
nose that required surgery, and she described her pain after surgery as a “ten
plus.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 38. We have little difficulty agreeing with the trial court
that this qualifies as “extreme pain” within the meaning of Indiana Code
Section 35-31.5-2-292. The State presented sufficient evidence to support
Barrett’s conviction for level 5 felony domestic battery.
[11] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-580| September 18, 2020 Page 5 of 5