Opinion
23A-CR-2651
06-28-2024
Dallas L. Sims, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Andrew Bernlohr Indianapolis, Indiana. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Alexandria Sons 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Daviess Superior Court The Honorable Dean A. Sobecki, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 14D01-2207-F6-731
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Andrew Bernlohr Indianapolis, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Alexandria Sons Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PYLE, JUDGE.
Statement of the Case
[¶1] Dallas L. Sims ("Sims") appeals, following a bench trial, her convictions for Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Sims argues that there was insufficient evidence to support these convictions. Concluding that the evidence was sufficient, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
I.C. § 35-44.1-3-1. Sims was also convicted of Level 6 felony domestic battery; however, she does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support that conviction.
[¶2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Sims' convictions for neglect of a dependent and resisting law enforcement.
Facts
[¶3] Sims and J.M. ("J.M.") had a daughter, A.M. ("A.M."), who was born in August 2018. Sims and J.M. were married until December 2018. To exchange custody of A.M. for visitations, they had established a procedure of meeting inside the foyer area of the Daviess County Security Center Jail ("the jail") and then exchanging custody.
[¶4] On July 3, 2022, Sims met J.M. at the jail to exchange custody of their three-year-old daughter. J.M., who had had visitation with A.M., had the child in his arms while walking up to the jail from the parking lot. Sims was standing outside the jail. J.M. told Sims that they needed to go inside the jail to do the exchange because they "kn[e]w there[] [were] cameras in there[.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 16). While they were still outside, Sims "scream[ed]" at and "grab[bed] for [J.M.]." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 16, 22). J.M. turned, and Sims grabbed him.
[¶5] J.M. then waved down Deputy Corey Jewett ("Deputy Jewett") who was pulling into the jail parking lot. J.M. told Deputy Jewett what had happened. Sims was "hollering things from the door." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 17). Deputy Jewett told Sims and J.M. to go inside the jail so that he could review the video from the outside cameras to see what had occurred. Once inside, Deputy Jewett had Sims and J.M. go to separate areas. Sims did not listen to Deputy Jewett, and the deputy had to "direct[] her away from [J.M.] as she approached him." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 26). Sims was "not screaming as loud[,]" but the deputy told her to use her "inside voice." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 18).
[¶6] J.M. continued to hold A.M. in his arms. When J.M. was standing near the door of a room in the jail, Sims "attempted to reach and take the child from [J.M.], and Deputy Jewett "order[ed] her . . . to step back away from [J.M.]." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 26). As J.M. turned away from Sims and started to walk into the room, Sims made physical contact with J.M. and caused J.M. to fall to the ground. J.M. was able to fall to his knees and not onto A.M. J.M. sustained abrasions on his knees. A.M. cried and was "terribly" upset when J.M. fell, and she had "a couple of fingerprint bruises" where J.M. had been holding tightly onto her. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 20).
[¶7] Deputy Jewett then advised Sims that she was under arrest and "instructed her to place her arms behind her back." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 27). Sims refused, and the deputy had to push her against a wall to try and handcuff her. When Deputy Jewett "grabbed at [Sims'] arms, she began twisting and pulling her arms away from [Deputy Jewett]" and was "trying to get her arms free of [his] grasp." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 27). Sims struggled with Deputy Jewett for twenty to thirty seconds.
[¶8] The State ultimately charged Sims with Level 6 felony domestic battery, Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The trial court held a bench trial on October 5, 2023. During the trial, J.M. testified that Sims had "assaulted" him when they were outside the jail. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 15, 17). J.M. and Deputy Jewett testified that, once inside the jail, Sims had caused J.M. to fall while he was holding A.M. J.M. testified that Sims had "pushed [him] in the back" and that their legs had gotten "caught up." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 19). Deputy Jewett testified that Sims had caused J.M. to fall after Sims had "run her torso into [J.M.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 27). Deputy Jewett testified that he had not "see[n] all of the contact" but that Sims had "made contact with [J.M.]" while she was also grabbing for A.M. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 26-27). The deputy also testified that Sims had "walk[ed] into [J.M.] with her body as a shove in [J.M.'s] back." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 35). Additionally, J.M. testified that Sims was "aggressive" with Deputy Jewett when he tried to place her into handcuffs and that the struggle had lasted twenty to thirty seconds. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 23). Furthermore, the State introduced two jail surveillance videos into evidence. One video depicted the events that had occurred outside the jail, and the other video depicted the events from inside the jail.
[¶9] When Sims testified, she denied that she had assaulted J.M. when they were outside. She also testified that she had not touched J.M. and that she had only touched A.M. in an attempt to take her from J.M.'s arms. Sims acknowledged that, when she was inside the jail, she had been "mad" and "upset[.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 41). Sims denied that she had "lunged" or "push[ed] [J.M.] with any force" when J.M. had walked toward the door to the room inside the jail. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 42). Sims testified that J.M. had "trip[ped] and fall[en]" after their feet had gotten "entangled[.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 42). Sims testified that, when J.M. had fallen, she was "scared that [A.M.] had a broken arm or a broken leg" because she "knew that he[] [wa]s a lot bigger[,]" with J.M. weighing about 350 pounds and A.M. weighing about fifty-four pounds. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 43).
[¶10] When Sims' counsel asked Sims about the resisting law enforcement charge, she acknowledged that Deputy Jewett had told her to put her hands behind her back, but she stated that she "could not hear [Deputy Jewett] a lot" because she "was mad" after "trying to get [her] daughter." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 41, 42). Sims stated that, at the time that Deputy Jewett had tried to handcuff her, she was "scared that [her] daughter [had been] hurt badly" and that A.M. had been "screaming for [Sims]." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 42). During Sims' testimony, she addressed Deputy Jewett, stating that she was "sorry" and "wasn't trying to resist arrest" and "d[id]n't mean to resist arrest." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 43).
[¶11] During closing arguments, Sims' counsel argued that Sims should be found not guilty of the domestic battery because Sims had testified that she had not made any contact with J.M. and that he had tripped on his own. Sims' counsel then argued that Sims was "not guilty of neglect of a dependent because there [wa]s no battery, according to [Sims'] testimony." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 47). When arguing about the resisting law enforcement charge, Sims' counsel stated that Sims "may have admitted to resisting" but that the "case law [wa]s pretty clear" that the resisting "can't be passive." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 47). Sims counsel added that "[t]wenty to thirty seconds of an officer trying to get a female into handcuffs, outside of her testimony, I don't know if her conduct was aggressive enough or forcibly enough to meet the elements of her resisting." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 47).
[¶12] The trial court found Sims guilty as charged. Specifically, the trial court stated that it had listened to the witnesses' testimony and had watched the videos. Regarding the Level 6 felony domestic battery and neglect of a dependent charges, the trial court concluded that Sims had engaged in a "touching" of J.M. that resulted in injury and that Sims had also placed her child in danger of "damage that could have been done because of that touching" while J.M. had been holding A.M. in his arms. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 47). Additionally, regarding the Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement charge, the trial court concluded that "[t]he resisting was clearly evidenced on the video as well, along with the testimony from Deputy Jewett." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 47).
[¶13] Immediately thereafter, the trial court sentenced Sims. For each of Sims' Level 6 felony convictions, the trial court imposed a sentence of 540 days with forty- four (44) days executed and 496 days suspended to probation. For the Class A misdemeanor conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of 360 days suspended to probation. The trial court ordered the sentences for the felony convictions to be served concurrently with each other and the sentence for the misdemeanor conviction to be served consecutively to the sentences for the two felony convictions.
Sims had already served the forty-four days prior to the bench trial.
[¶14] Sims now appeals her convictions for neglect of a dependent and resisting law enforcement.
Decision
[¶15] Sims argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions for Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well settled. We "consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict." Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007) (emphasis in original). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 146-47. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may be reasonably drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. at 147.
[¶16] Sims argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of the intent element for her neglect and resisting convictions. In other words, she asserts that there was insufficient evidence to show that she had knowingly or intentionally committed the neglect and resisting offenses.
[¶17] "A person engages in conduct 'knowingly' if, when [s]he engages in the conduct, [s]he is aware of a high probability that [s]he is doing so. I.C. § 35-41-2-2(b). "A person engages in conduct 'intentionally' if, when [s]he engages in the conduct, it is h[er] conscious objective to do so. I.C. § 35-41-2-2(a). "Because intent is a mental state, the fact-finder often must resort to the reasonable inferences based upon an examination of the surrounding circumstances to determine whether-from the person's conduct and the natural consequences therefrom-there is a showing or inference of the requisite criminal intent." Diallo v. State, 928 N.E.2d 250, 253 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (cleaned up). See also Heuring v. State, 140 N.E.3d 270, 275 (Ind. 2020) (explaining that intent is a mental function that can be inferred from a defendant's conduct and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically and reasonably points).
[¶18] We first turn to Sims' argument that there was insufficient evidence to support the intent element of her neglect of a dependent conviction. Sims specifically asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction because she "neither knowingly nor intentionally placed A.M. in a situation that endangered her life or health." (Sims' Br. 9). We disagree.
[¶19] The neglect of a dependent statute, INDIANA CODE § 35-46-1-4, provides that "[a] person having the care of a dependent, . . . who knowingly or intentionally . . . places the dependent in a situation that endangers the dependent's life or health . . . commits neglect of a dependent, a Level 6 felony." I.C. § 35-46-1-4(a)(1). Thus, to convict Sims of Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sims, who had the care of her dependent, A.M., knowingly or intentionally placed A.M. in a situation that endangered A.M.'s life or health. I.C. § 35-46-1-4(a)(1).
[¶20] The mens rea requirement of the neglect of a dependent statute requires the State to show that a defendant was "subjectively aware of a high probability that [s]he placed the dependent in a dangerous situation." Dexter v. State, 945 N.E.2d 220, 224 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011), summarily aff'd in relevant part, 959 N.E.2d 235, 237 (Ind. 2012). The danger must be "actual and appreciable[,]" meaning that "the child must be exposed to some risk of physical or mental harm that goes substantially beyond the normal risk of bumps, bruises, or even worse that accompany the activities of the average child." Id. at 224 n.4 (cleaned up). To make a showing that a defendant placed her dependent in a dangerous situation, the State need only prove that the defendant was "aware of facts that would alert a reasonable caregiver under the circumstances to take affirmative action to protect the child." Id. at 224. Such a determination requires the factfinder to resort to inferential reasoning to ascertain the mental state of the defendant and to look to all the surrounding circumstances of the case when making this determination. Id.
[¶21] Here, the evidence and reasonable inferences reveal that the State presented sufficient evidence that Sims was subjectively aware of a high probability that she had placed A.M. in a dangerous situation. As Sims and J.M. were engaging in a contentious child custody exchange, Deputy Jewett attempted to separate Sims and J.M. while inside the jail. Deputy Jewett ordered Sims not to approach J.M. Sims ignored the deputy's instructions and moved toward J.M., who was walking away from Sims and holding three-year-old A.M. in his arms. Sims, who was admittedly mad and upset, then pushed her body into the back of J.M. while he continued to hold A.M. in his arms. Sims' actions caused J.M. to fall to the ground. Sims, who knew that J.M. weighed about 350 pounds and that A.M. weighed only about fifty-four pounds, was afraid that A.M. had broken an arm or a leg. Further, Sims does not dispute her domestic battery conviction against J.M. and that she had touched J.M. in a rude or insolent manner while he was holding A.M. in his arms. Based on the evidence and the surrounding circumstances, we conclude that the trial court, as finder of fact, could have reasonably inferred that Sims was aware of facts that would alert a reasonable caregiver under the circumstances to take affirmative action to protect the child and that she was subjectively aware of a high probability she placed her child in a dangerous situation. See e.g., id. at 224-25 (affirming the defendant's neglect of a dependent conviction where the surrounding circumstances showed that he was subjectively aware of a high probability he placed the child in a dangerous situation). Accordingly, we affirm Sims' Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent conviction.
[¶22] Next, we review Sims' argument that there was insufficient evidence to support the intent element of her resisting law enforcement conviction. Sims contends that the evidence of her intent was "grossly insufficient" because she had testified that she had not heard Deputy Jewett tell her to put her hands behind her back, making her "unaware that she was resisting arrest." (Sims' Br. 11). Again, we disagree.
[¶23] The resisting law enforcement statute, INDIANA CODE § 35-44.1-3-1, provides that "[a] person who knowingly or intentionally . . . forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer . . . while the officer is engaged in the execution of the officer's duties . . . commits resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor[.]" I.C. § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1). Thus, to convict Sims of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sims knowingly or intentionally forcibly resisted, obstructed, or interfered with Deputy Jewett while he was engaged in the execution of his duties. I.C. § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1).
[¶24] Here, the State presented evidence that, after Deputy Jewett advised Sims that she was under arrest and instructed her to place her arms behind her back, she refused. Deputy Jewett struggled to handcuff Sims for twenty to thirty seconds as she twisted and pulled her arms away from him in an "aggressive" manner. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 23). Moreover, during Sims' testimony, she acknowledged that she had resisted the arrest by Deputy Jewett, and she apologized to the deputy from the stand.
[¶25] Sims' argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence regarding her intent is nothing more than a request to reweigh the evidence and the trial court's credibility determination, which we will not do. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146. The evidence presented during the bench trial supports the trial court's determination that Sims knowingly or intentionally forcibly resisted, obstructed, or interfered with Deputy Jewett while he was engaged in the execution of his duties. See, e.g., Gamble v. State, 591 N.E.2d 142, 145 (Ind.Ct.App. 1992) (holding that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's conviction of resisting law enforcement when the defendant resisted being handcuffed). Accordingly, we affirm Sims' Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement conviction.
[¶26] Affirmed.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.