Opinion
24A-CR-975
11-04-2024
Jasmine Bundles, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Talisha Griffin Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General, Sierra A. Murray Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable William J. Nelson, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49D18-2304-F6-10610
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Talisha Griffin Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General, Sierra A. Murray Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Altice, Chief Judge
Case Summary
[¶1] Following a bench trial, Jasmine Bundles was convicted of two counts of battery, which were elevated to Level 6 felonies for being committed against public safety officials. On appeal, Bundles challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting only one of her convictions.
[¶2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[¶3] On April 20, 2023, Bundles was living in InTown Suites, an extended stay hotel in Indianapolis. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) officers were dispatched to the hotel on the report of a disturbance. Bundles was inside her room with a male individual, where items were being thrown around.
[¶4] IMPD Officers Anthony Long and Trevor Wright responded to the dispatch. The male was placed in handcuffs and accompanied by Officer Wright in the hallway, while Officer Long went inside the hotel room to secure Bundles. When Bundles would not cooperate, the officers called for backup. IMPD Officers Zachary Alexander and Ericson Hernandez-Morgado quickly responded to the scene on the report of a "resistor." Transcript at 44. Officer Alexander arrived "hot" with lights and sirens activated. Id. at 49. He was in full police uniform. The record does not expressly state whether Officer Hernandez-Morgado was also in uniform or whether he rode in the same vehicle as Officer Alexander.
[¶5] Upon their arrival, Officers Alexander and Hernandez-Morgado both observed Officer Long "wrestling" with Bundles inside the room. Id. at 44 and 49. Officer Alexander then stood with the male subject in the hallway, as Officers Wright and Hernandez-Morgado went to assist Officer Long. Together they were able to place Bundles in handcuffs while she continued to struggle. She was then taken into the hallway, where she waited with officers until a female officer arrived to perform a search of Bundles before transport.
[¶6] Bundles was argumentative and continued to disregard the officers' demands in the hallway. She refused to allow herself to be searched by the female officer, so several officers attempted to place Bundles on the ground. When Officer Hernandez-Morgado put his hands on her shoulders, Bundles turned her head and bit his left arm. She did not let go until Officer Hernandez-Morgado struck her. The bite broke through his skin. Bundles also spit on Officer Alexander's face and uniform, and bit or attempted to bite Officer Long.
[¶7] The State charged Bundles with three counts of Level 6 felony battery - alleged victims Officer Hernandez-Morgado (Count I), Officer Long (Count II), and Officer Alexander (Count III) - and one count of Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement. The matter proceeded to a bench trial on March 25, 2024, where only Officers Hernandez-Morgado and Alexander testified for the State. Bundles then testified briefly on her own behalf, claiming that she was confused about why "the police" were in her hotel room and that she was frightened during the arrest. Id. at 55.
[¶8] The trial court found Bundles guilty of Counts I and III and not guilty of Counts II and IV. The court then sentenced Bundles to 545 days in the Marion County Jail on each count, to be served concurrently, and suspended all but time served. The court assigned a mental health probation officer, as Bundles has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Bundles now appeals.
Discussion &Decision
[¶9] Bundles challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction on Count I, the count involving Officer Hernandez-Morgado. Our standard of review in this regard is well-settled:
When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses. Fix v. State, 186 N.E.3d 1134, 1138 (Ind. 2022). "When there are conflicts in the evidence, the [trier of fact] must resolve them." Young v. State, 198 N.E.3d 1172, 1176 (Ind. 2022). Thus, on appeal, we consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting the conviction and will affirm "unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Fix, 186 N.E.3d at 1138 (quoting Jackson v. State, 50 N.E.3d 767, 770 (Ind. 2016)).Sorgdrager v. State, 208 N.E.3d 646, 650 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023), trans. denied.
[¶10] A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits Class B misdemeanor battery. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1). The offense is elevated to a Level 6 felony if "committed against a public safety official while the official is engaged in the official's official duty[.]" Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(e)(2).
[¶11] On appeal, Bundles does not dispute that she touched Officer Hernandez-Morgado in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. She claims only that the State failed to prove the elevated charge of battery against a public safety official because it failed to "prove by objective evidence that [Bundles] either knew or should have known that she was dealing with an officer." Appellant's Brief at 6.
[¶12] Bundles directs us to Cupello v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1122 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015), which addressed a conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer. The officer in Cupello was an off-duty Pike Township Constable, Robert Webb, working as a courtesy officer for an apartment complex. After being alerted by management that the defendant had verbally intimidated staff, Constable Webb went to the defendant's apartment to investigate. The record was silent as to whether Constable Webb was in uniform or had otherwise objectively identified himself as an officer while speaking with the defendant. During their discussion, the defendant became angry and battered Constable Webb.
[¶13] The issue in Cupello was whether the State presented sufficient evidence that Constable Webb was engaged in the performance of his official duties as a law enforcement officer at the time of the battery. In answering that question in the affirmative, a panel of this court observed that off-duty police officers, in or out of uniform, can perform official duties, even when responding to a private call, as it is the nature of the acts performed that determines whether an officer is engaged in the performance of official duties. Id. at 1127. The court continued:
Although the State is correct that Constable Webb's actions evince the execution of the officer's official duties, something more is required: a citizen who encounters an off-duty law enforcement officer must have an objective basis to determine that the officer is acting in his official capacity and not in a private capacity.
***
Thus, where the State seeks to prove that an off-duty law enforcement officer is engaged in the execution of his official duties, it must satisfy a two part test: the State must prove by objective evidence that (1) the nature of the acts performed demonstrate that the officer sought to enforce the law to maintain peace and order for the benefit of the public; and (2) the citizen knew or should have known both that the person was an officer and that the officer was acting in his official, and not his private, capacity.Id. at 1127-28 (emphasis supplied). Applying this test, the court found sufficient evidence that (1) Constable Webb had acted to enforce the law by responding to a complaint of intimidation and (2) it could be reasonably inferred that the defendant knew Constable Webb was an officer acting in his official capacity, as he told Constable Webb that he wished to press harassment charges against the apartment's maintenance technician. Id. at 1128.
[¶14] Bundles argues that, like in Cupello, the record does not establish whether Officer Hernandez-Morgado was wearing his uniform or otherwise identified as a police officer at the scene. Bundles also notes that there is no evidence that she had had prior dealings with Officer Hernandez-Morgado in his capacity as a police officer or otherwise knew his official role.
[¶15] What Bundles's argument ignores, however, is that there is no suggestion in the record that Officer Hernandez-Morgado was off duty at the time or on the scene in any capacity other than as a police officer. The record establishes that he responded to a police dispatch and actively assisted in the arrest of Bundles along with other officers, including Officer Alexander, who was in uniform and arrived in a police vehicle with his lights and sirens activated. The circumstances presented here are entirely different than in Cupello, as there is no question that Officer Hernandez-Morgado was performing his official duties as a police officer at the time he was battered.
[¶16] We find Owens v. State, 742 N.E.2d 538 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001), trans. denied, to be more applicable here. Owens dealt with an undercover narcotics officer engaged in his official duties when he was battered by the defendant. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the State failed to prove that the defendant knew his victim was a law enforcement officer when he struck him. A panel of this court held that the State was not required to prove that the defendant knew his battery victim was a police officer in order for the offense to be elevated from a simple battery. Id. at 543 ("The conduct prohibited in a battery is the rude, insolent, or angry touching, and this is the conduct that must be done knowingly or intentionally by the actor.").
During the drug transaction and before the battery, the defendant had asked the undercover officer whether he was a cop. The officer replied that he was not.
[¶17] The State suggests that there is tension between Cupello and Owens. But the cases can be read in harmony if Cupello's two-part test is understood to apply only in situations "where the State seeks to prove that an off-duty law enforcement officer [or more generally, an off-duty public safety official] is engaged in the execution of his official duties[.]" Cupello, 27 N.E.3d at 1129. In any event, the evidence clearly establishes that Bundles knew or should have known that Officer-Hernandez-Morgado, like Officer Alexander, was a public safety official engaged in his official duties when she bit him.
[¶18] Judgment affirmed.
Vaidik, J. and Crone, J., concur.