Opinion
Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CR-1258
01-18-2022
Bradley S. ACKERMAN, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Attorney for Appellant: Victoria Bailey Casanova, Indianapolis, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Steven J. Hosler, Deputy Attorney General, Andrew J. Ireland, Deputy Attorney General, Tiffany A. McCoy, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorney for Appellant: Victoria Bailey Casanova, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Steven J. Hosler, Deputy Attorney General, Andrew J. Ireland, Deputy Attorney General, Tiffany A. McCoy, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Following a jury trial, Bradley Ackerman was convicted of battery by bodily waste as a Level 6 felony and disorderly conduct as a Class B misdemeanor. On appeal, Ackerman argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his battery by bodily waste conviction, challenging specifically the evidence as it pertains to his mens rea.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] During the evening of September 29, 2019, Officer Thomas O'Brien of the Ligonier Police Department (LPD) received a dispatch about a reckless driver. He located the vehicle he believed to be the subject of the dispatch and followed it. After the driver committed a traffic infraction by failing to signal within 200 feet of a turn, he initiated a traffic stop. As Officer O'Brien approached the driver's door, Ackerman started to get out of the vehicle. Officer O'Brien ordered Ackerman to stay seated and called for backup.
[4] LPD Sergeant Brandon Stout arrived at the scene and approached the passenger side of the vehicle, making contact with the female passenger. Sergeant Stout saw "something protruding from the center chest like where her bra would be" and could not immediately identify the object. Transcript Vol. 2 at 144. When Sergeant Stout asked the passenger to exit the vehicle, Ackerman became "extremely agitated" and started "screaming and yelling." Id. at 168. Officer O'Brien warned Ackerman that he would be taken to jail for disorderly conduct if he did not stop. Ackerman, however, continued "screaming and yelling" and "began punching the steering wheel." Id. at 169. Officer O'Brien asked him to stop at which time Ackerman "balled up his fist" in the direction of Officer O'Brien. Id. To keep the situation from "further escalating or more force being needed," Officer O'Brien placed his arm under Ackerman's and lifted him out of the car. Despite being warned again, Ackerman continued to be "extremely loud and obscene." Id. Ackerman was then placed in handcuffs and arrested for disorderly conduct.
[5] Officer O'Brien transported Ackerman to the Noble County Jail, where he was met outside by Sergeant Jeremy Walters and Confinement Officer Renee Cunningham. Ackerman was "very agitated and angry" and refused to exit the police vehicle. Id. at 192. Sergeant Walters and Officer Cunningham had to forcibly remove Ackerman from the car.
[6] After Ackerman was searched, Sergeant Walters and Officer Cunningham walked him into the booking area. Officer Cunningham was on Ackerman's left side, "next to him and just behind him a little bit" and Sergeant Walters was on Ackerman's right side. Id. at 194. Officer O'Brien followed. Officer O'Brien "heard the noise that is associated when someone spits or hocks a loogie," and Officer Cunningham observed Ackerman look over his left shoulder and spit. Id. at 175. Ackerman's spit landed on Officer Cunningham's face and arm.
[7] On September 30, 2019, the State charged Ackerman with battery by bodily waste on a public safety official, a Level 6 felony, and disorderly conduct as a Class B misdemeanor. Following a jury trial on April 29, 2021, Ackerman was found guilty on both counts. Ackerman now appeals, challenging only the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for battery by bodily waste.
Discussion & Decision
[8] When addressing sufficiency of the evidence claims, our standard of review is well settled: we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. McCallister v. State , 91 N.E.3d 554, 558 (Ind. 2018). Rather, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Purvis v. State , 87 N.E.3d 1119, 1124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). We will affirm a defendant's conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Bailey v. State , 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009).
[9] Battery by bodily waste occurs where "a person ... knowingly or intentionally in a rude, insolent, or angry manner places any bodily fluid or waste on another person." Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(2). The offense is a Level 6 felony if "committed against a public safety official while the official is engaged in the official's official duty." I.C. § 35-42-2-1(e)(2). "A person engages in conduct ‘intentionally’ if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so." Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(a). "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." I.C. § 35-41-2-2(b).
[10] Ackerman does not dispute that "he spit and that his spit landed on Officer Cunningham," who was a public safety official engaged in her official duty. Appellant's Brief at 8. His challenge is strictly limited to whether there is sufficient evidence to show that he acted knowingly or intentionally. Specifically, he argues that he did not see Officer Cunningham as she was walking behind him and that he did not spit directly at her. He seizes on the evidence that he did not look directly at Officer Cunningham as evidence that he did not know or intend to spit on Officer Cunningham. Ackerman's argument is simply a request for us to depart from our standard of review and reweigh the evidence.
A "public safety official" includes "an employee of a penal facility." I.C. § 35-42-2-1(a)(2).
[11] As our Supreme Court has noted, "the mens rea element for a criminal offense is almost inevitably ... a matter of circumstantial proof." Hampton v. State , 961 N.E.2d 480, 487 (Ind. 2012). Indeed, "it is well established that knowledge and intent may be inferred from the facts and circumstances." Lykins v. State , 726 N.E.2d 1265, 1270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
[12] Here, the evidence showed that soon after Officer O'Brien initiated the traffic stop, Ackerman became angry and agitated. His anger escalated to the point that a routine traffic stop resulted in his arrest for disorderly conduct. Ackerman was still "very agitated and angry" when he arrived at the jail, and he refused to cooperate. Transcript Vol. 2 at 192. After Officer Cunningham assisted with forcibly removing Ackerman from the police vehicle, she positioned herself "next to him and just behind him a little bit" on his left side as they walked. Id. at 194. She further testified that as she and Sergeant Walters were escorting Ackerman to the booking room, Ackerman looked over his left shoulder and then spat, resulting in his spittle striking her on the face and arm. Officer O'Brien provided corroborating testimony, stating that he heard Ackerman "hock[ ] a loogie" immediately beforehand. Id. at 175. This evidence supports the jury's determination that Ackerman knowingly and intentionally spit on Officer Cunningham. We therefore affirm Ackerman's conviction for battery by bodily waste on a public safety official.
[13] Judgment affirmed.
Bailey, J. and Mathias, J., concur.