MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case Summary
[1] In July of 2020, Haroulakis was upset with his ex-wife and making a scene in the yard when his wife A.H. tried to persuade him to come inside their residence. A.H. went inside and Haroulakis followed her and ordered her to come back outside. When A.H. refused and turned away, Haroulakis twisted her arm behind her, causing her pain in her shoulder. Haroulakis was ultimately convicted of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and sentenced to 365 days of incarceration, all suspended to probation. Haroulakis contends that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Haroulakis and A.H. were married and residing together in St. Joseph County in July of 2020. Shortly after noon on July 19, 2020, Haroulakis told A.H. that he was going to the store and, after returning, stayed in his truck for approximately two hours, talking on his telephone for at least some of that time. A.H. went outside around 4:30 p.m. and found Haroulakis spraying weeds in the yard. Haroulakis appeared to be intoxicated, and when A.H. tried to convince him to come inside, he explained that he was upset with his ex-wife because she would not share her current boyfriends name with him.
[3] Haroulakis began yelling and “calling out the neighbors by name, saying that they needed to be involved in [․] [t]his injustice of his ex-wife not giving her boyfriends last name.” Tr. Vol. II p. 12. A.H. told Haroulakis that “this is ridiculous” and “[y]oure making a scene” and went inside. Tr. Vol. II p. 12. Haroulakis followed A.H. inside and told her to come back outside. When A.H. refused and turned away, Haroulakis twisted her left arm behind her, causing her pain to her shoulder which made her “double over.” Tr. Vol. II p. 13. A.H. described the incident as “very painful” and “very startling.” Tr. Vol. II p. 13.
[4] The State eventually charged Haroulakis with Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and Class B misdemeanor battery. Haroulakiss bench trial was held on December 3, 2020, after which the trial court found him guilty as charged, dismissed the battery charge due to double jeopardy concerns, entered judgment of conviction for domestic battery, and sentenced him to 365 days of incarceration, all suspended to probation.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Haroulakis contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for domestic battery. When evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we do not “reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses,” nor do we intrude within the factfinders “exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence.” Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625, 627 (Ind. 2001). Rather, a conviction will be affirmed unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000). The evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but instead, “the evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.” Pickens v. State, 751 N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). When we are confronted with conflicting evidence, we must consider it “most favorably to the [factfinders] ruling.” Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind. 2005).
[6] To prove Haroulakis guilty of domestic battery, the State was required to show that he had touched A.H., a family member, in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1). Haroulakiss sole argument on appeal is that the State produced insufficient evidence to establish that his touching of A.H. had been done in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. We disagree. A.H. testified that Haroulakis had been upset with his ex-wife and “making a scene” in the yard and that she had told him that he was being ridiculous and went inside. Tr. Vol. II p. 12. A.H. further testified that Haroulakis had followed A.H. inside, demanded that she go back outside, and, when she refused, twisted her arm behind her, causing her pain in her shoulder. This evidence amply supports an inference that Haroulakiss touching of A.H. was done in a rude, insolent, or angry fashion. Haroulakiss argument amounts to nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Alkhalidi, 753 N.E.2d at 627.
[7] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.