Wilma Beatrice Allen v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 79A05-1601-CR-26

On July 6, 2015, 51-year-old Wilma Beatrice Allen was watching grandchildren including 5-year-old C.W.; Allen had been drinking.
During play, C.W. spilled a bottle that struck Allen; Allen retrieved a belt and struck C.W. on the arm, causing bruising, welting, and removal of skin.
Deputies and medics observed a fresh arm injury; Allen left before police arrived, was later found with a cut finger and smelling of alcohol, and admitted disciplining the children.
Allen was charged with battery as a Level 6 felony (victim under 14 and offender over 18) and as an habitual offender; she denied causing the injury and claimed it predated the incident.
At bench trial the court found B.B. credible, C.W. not credible due to age, discredited Allen’s explanation, found Allen intoxicated and that she intentionally struck C.W., and convicted her of Level 6 felony battery.
Court sentenced Allen to 2.5 years (battery) enhanced by 4 years for habitual offender; on appeal she argued insufficient evidence to overcome the parental-discipline (parental privilege) defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support Level 6 felony battery conviction	State: evidence shows Allen, over 18, intentionally struck a child under 14 with a belt causing moderate bodily injury (bruising, welt, torn skin)	Allen: she did not cause the injury (it preexisted), and even if she struck, she was entitled to parental discipline privilege as a grandparent/custodian	Affirmed: evidence sufficient for conviction; trier of fact could find elements beyond reasonable doubt
Whether parental-discipline privilege negates criminal liability	State: defense is affirmative and was not properly raised; even considered, the force was unreasonable and privilege fails	Allen: as grandparent/caregiver she may use reasonable corporal punishment; the injury could have been older and discipline may have been reasonable	Court: defense was either waived or tried by implied consent; even if considered, facts negate the privilege because force was disproportionate and caused moderate injury

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
Willis v. State, 888 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. 2008) (parental-discipline privilege explained and factors for reasonableness)
Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268 (Ind. 2000) (sufficiency review — affirm unless no reasonable fact‑finder could convict)
Clemons v. State, 996 N.E.2d 1282 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (issues tried by implied consent under Trial Rule 15(B))
Smith v. State, 34 N.E.3d 252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (belt discipline causing injury can exceed parental privilege)
Hunter v. State, 950 N.E.2d 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (repeated belt strikes found unreasonable and privilege negated)