Donald Anderson, Jr. v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 152
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On May 4, 2016, Donald Anderson was escorted out of an Indianapolis Public Library branch after an argument; as he passed patron Kishawna Hicks he spit in her face.
- Library security officer Laura Johnson witnessed the incident and testified at the bench trial.
- Anderson was charged May 5, 2016 with Class B misdemeanor battery by bodily waste under Indiana law.
- At the August 17, 2016 bench trial Anderson admitted spitting but offered a self‑defense theory and inconsistently referred to the victim by various names.
- The trial court found Anderson guilty and imposed a time‑served sentence; Anderson appealed arguing insufficient evidence and a material variance between the charging information and trial testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Anderson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove battery by bodily waste | The State: testimony (including Anderson’s own) proved Anderson knowingly placed bodily fluid on another in a rude/angry manner | Anderson: identity of the victim and elements were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed — testimony (Anderson’s admission plus security officer corroboration) was sufficient |
| Material variance between charging information and trial proof (victim identity) | The State: charging information correctly named the victim; minor name misstatements at trial were immaterial | Anderson: discrepancies in the victim’s name (he and a witness used different names) created a material variance that impaired his defense | Affirmed — discrepancy was minor, did not mislead defense or create double jeopardy risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Harbert v. State, 51 N.E.3d 267 (Ind. Ct. App.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Winn v. State, 748 N.E.2d 352 (Ind.) (test for material variance requires showing defense was misled or double jeopardy risk)
- Habibzadah v. State, 904 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. Ct. App.) (concerns about competency and mental‑illness procedures in criminal cases)
- Wampler v. State, 67 N.E.3d 633 (Ind.) (Supreme Court recognition of concerns about competency assessment procedures)