Opinion
23A-CR-1677
06-17-2024
Justin Harold Hannis, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
Attorney for Appellant Jerry T. Drook Marion, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Jennifer B. Anwarzai 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Grant Superior Court The Honorable Bridget N. Foust, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 27D02-2212-F3-28
Attorney for Appellant Jerry T. Drook Marion, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General
Jennifer B. Anwarzai Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BAILEY, JUDGE
Case Summary
[¶1] Justin Hannis appeals his conviction of aggravated battery, as a Level 3 felony. His only contention is that the State presented insufficient evidence that the victim's injury created a substantial risk of death. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] Hannis met Maurice Knight through Deanna Foreman, whom they both dated. Foreman dated Knight "off and on" for a period of sixteen years. Tr. v. II at 83. Knight was incarcerated from 2014-2015. During that time, Foreman met Hannis through Facebook, and they developed a romantic relationship. In 2021, Hannis began living with Foreman. In late 2021, Foreman and Hannis got into a fight, and Foreman went to visit Knight. Foreman then began a relationship with Knight for approximately a month, before returning to Hannis. Foreman continued simultaneously pursuing her romantic interests with both Knight and Hannis into the late months of 2022. When Hannis learned of Foreman's romantic relationship with Knight, he became upset.
[¶3] On December 12, 2022, Foreman picked Knight up from his residence, and they went to a grocery store. As Foreman and Knight were exiting the grocery store, Hannis entered. Hannis saw Foreman and Knight and immediately approached them. Hannis stood close to Knight's face and said he was going to kill him. Knight then punched Hannis in the face, and Hannis stepped back a little bit. Knight tried to leave the store, and Hannis kept talking. Knight saw Hannis stab him with a knife as Hannis executed what Knight thought was "a lazy uppercut." Id. at 150-51. Foreman told Knight that he was bleeding, and Knight noticed that he was covered in blood.
[¶4] Hannis proceeded into the store, and Knight followed him while throwing canned goods at him. Knight fell to the floor and then saw Hannis exiting the store. The police arrived, and Hannis ran from them. The police pursued Hannis in their vehicles and into a parking lot across the street, where they apprehended him. The police searched Hannis and recovered from his pocket a "collapsible, foldable knife" with a dried red stain on the blade. Id. at 52.
[¶5] Knight and Foreman followed Hannis and the police to the parking lot where Hannis was apprehended. Police officers asked Knight if he needed any medical assistance, and Knight told them he was bleeding from somewhere and that he had been stabbed. An officer told Knight to hold his head up and then was able to determine that Knight had been stabbed in the neck. Officer Scott Fletcher arrived on the scene and noticed that there was blood "spurting out of [Knight's] neck." Id. at 190. Officer Fletcher had training and experience as an EMT and a combat medic, and he believed Knight's wound was "lifethreatening." Id. at 194. Officer Fletcher cut off Knight's blood-soaked hoodie, long sleeve shirt, and T-shirt to reveal a blood-soaked tank top. It was apparent to Officer Fletcher that Knight had lost "a copious amount of blood." Id. at 197. Knight was transported to Marion General Hospital by ambulance.
[¶6] Dr. Faisal Noorzad, an emergency medicine specialist at Marion General Hospital, treated Knight when Knight arrived at the hospital. Dr. Noorzad examined Knight's stab wound and determined that the incision was to the anterior medial region of the neck. Based on the location of the wound, Dr. Noorzad had concerns that there could be damage to Knight's jugular vein. Dr. Noorzad also observed the oozing of blood which he found concerning because "it can be a sentinel bleed and [_] an imminent [_] aggressive arterial bleed [_] could follow." Id. at 35. Dr. Noorzad explained that such bleeding was concerning because "if something is oozing, it can expand or rupture." Id. He further stated, "Anytime you see that injury, you have to be very, uh, cautious and you have to move the patient rapidly to definitive care essentially." Id.
[¶7] Dr. Noorzad was also concerned about Knight having an "active hemorrhage." Id. at 36. Dr. Noorzad testified that any time there is a penetrating wound to the neck there is a "substantial risk of death" and that, although the "oozing" was a "soft sign" of trauma, there were still "serious concerns" about Knight's health. Id. at 36, 40. Dr. Noorzad stated that the standard of care for any penetrating injury to the neck is exploration by trauma surgery because that is the only definitive way to exclude any major injuries to vessels, structures, airways, or nerves. Dr. Noorzad concluded that Knight's neck wound presented "the possibility of the serious risk of death." Id. at 36-37.
[¶8] Based on Dr. Noorzad's concerns and the type of treatment he believed Knight required, Dr. Noorzad determined that Knight needed to go to a trauma center. While not every traumatic injury requires transfer to another hospital, such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. After Dr. Noorzad consulted with a hospital trauma surgeon, Knight was approved for transfer by helicopter to St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis, which is a level 1 trauma center. A CT scan was performed to evaluate Knight's right jugular vein, and he received eight stitches, including five internal stitches and three external stitches.
[¶9] The State charged Hannis with Level 3 felony aggravated battery, Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. At the conclusion of his jury trial, Hannis was found guilty on all counts. The court entered judgment of conviction on all three counts, vacated the conviction for Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon, and sentenced Hannis accordingly. This appeal ensued.
I.C. § 35-42-2-1.
I.C. § 35-44.1-3-1.
Discussion and Decision
[¶10] Hannis contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to support a criminal conviction, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. We consider only the evidence
supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence. 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) (internal citations omitted). "A conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence alone so long as there are reasonable inferences enabling the factfinder to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Lawrence v. State, 959 N.E.2d 385, 388 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012) (citation omitted), trans. denied.
[¶11] To convict Hannis of aggravated battery, as a Level 3 felony, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) Hannis (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) inflicted injury on Knight (4) that created a substantial risk of death. Hannis does not dispute that the State proved the first three elements of the crime; he contends only that the State failed to prove that Knight's injuries created a substantial risk of death.
[¶12] Whether a risk of death is substantial enough to meet the statutory definition is largely a matter of degree "and therefore a question reserved for the factfinder." Young v. State, 725 N.E.2d 78, 82 (Ind. 2000). Here, the State provided evidence from multiple witnesses that Knight's injuries posed such a risk. Officer Fletcher, who had training and experience as an EMT and a combat medic, testified that when he arrived at the scene, there was blood "spurting out of [Knight's] neck," Knight had lost "copious amounts of blood," Knight's four layers of shirts were all soaked with blood, and Officer Fletcher believed Knight's neck wound was "life-threatening." Tr. at 190, 194, 197. Dr. Noorzad, the ER doctor who first treated Knight at Marion General Hospital, testified that both the location and nature of the stab wound in Knight's neck created a "substantial risk of death." Id. at 36. In fact, the risk was too great for the injury to be treated at the Marion hospital, which did not have a trauma unit; it required that Knight be transported by helicopter to a trauma center in an Indianapolis hospital.
[¶13] That is sufficient evidence from which the jury reasonably could conclude the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the injury Hannis caused Knight created a substantial risk of death. And we note that a substantial risk of death is all that is required under the statute; thus, the fact that the injury fortunately ended up only requiring multiple stitches does not detract from the fact that there was a substantial risk that it could have been fatal, as shown by the testimony of those with medical training. Hannis's arguments to the contrary are requests that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See Bailey, 907 N.E.2d at 1005.
Conclusion
[¶14] The State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that the injury Hannis inflicted upon Knight created a substantial risk of death. As Hannis does not challenge any other element of the aggravated battery conviction, we affirm it.
[¶15] Affirmed.
Altice, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.