Terry L. Brown v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
02A05-1612-CR-2917
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- On July 23, 2016, Terry L. Brown and his long-term girlfriend Jacquelyn Willet argued at her home after drinking; Brown allegedly struck Willet and pushed her into furniture.
- Neighbor Tammy Barrand looked through a window and testified she saw Brown hit Willet in the head, causing Willet to fall.
- Multiple neighbors called 911; responding officers testified Willet told them Brown struck her three times and officers observed redness on Willet’s face consistent with being hit.
- Brown had a prior domestic battery conviction against Willet from November 2014 (same victim and cause number was proven at trial).
- The State charged Brown with Level 5 felony domestic battery (with prior conviction) and Level 6 domestic battery; jury found him guilty of both, the court vacated the Level 6 conviction and sentenced Brown to six years executed for the Level 5 offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict Brown of Level 5 felony domestic battery (prior same-victim conviction) | State: eyewitness (Barrand), victim’s statement to police, officers’ observations of facial redness, and prior conviction establish every element | Brown: eyewitness testimony is incredibly dubious (Barrand only eyewitness and claimed she hadn’t previously reported seeing it); no physical evidence corroborates the eyewitness | Court: Evidence was sufficient; incredible-dubiosity rule inapplicable because there were multiple testifying witnesses (officers/victim statements) and circumstantial corroboration |
Key Cases Cited
- Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855 (court will not reweigh evidence on sufficiency review)
- Fuentes v. State, 10 N.E.3d 68 (consider only evidence most favorable to the verdict and reasonable inferences)
- Carter v. State, 31 N.E.3d 17 (explaining the incredible-dubiosity rule and its rare application)
- Smith v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1211 (criteria required for applying the incredible-dubiosity rule)
- Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749 (incredible-dubiosity rule does not apply where corroborating witnesses exist)