Aaron Hillard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: TIMOTHY J. BURNS Indianapolis, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ANGELA N. SANCHEZ Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana FILED Dec 31 2009, 9:54 am IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA AARON HILLIARD, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 49A02-0906-CR-538 APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Linda E. Brown, Judge Cause No. 49F10-0901-CM-18842 December 31, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION VAIDIK, Judge CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court Case Summary Aaron Hilliard appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery. Specifically, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History The facts most favorable to the judgment reveal that on January 26, 2009, Donald Stafford pulled his car into a handicapped parking space at an Indianapolis Kroger. Stafford then began to exit his car. As Stafford reached for his cane and put his leg out of the car, Hilliard approached Stafford, told Stafford that he took his parking spot, and kicked him in the knee. Tr. p. 6, 7. Two women witnessed the event, and they called the police. Hilliard was apprehended inside the store. As a result of the kick, Stafford s knee was skinned and bruised, which caused him pain. The State charged Hilliard with Class A misdemeanor battery. A bench trial was held in May 2009. At trial, Hilliard testified that he exited his truck and approached Stafford, who was sitting in his car, because Stafford almost hit his truck as he pulled into the handicapped parking space. Hilliard also testified that Stafford initially did not exit his car but instead lodged racial remarks toward him. Then later, Stafford exited his car and poked Hilliard with his cane. The court found Hilliard guilty as charged and sentenced him to 365 days with 355 days suspended and credit for time served and eighty hours of community service. Hilliard now appeals his conviction. 2 Discussion and Decision Hilliard contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts must only consider the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is the fact-finder s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient. Id. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court s ruling. Id. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 146-47 (quotation omitted). It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. at 147 (quotation omitted). [T]he evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the [judgment]. Id. (quotation omitted). In order to convict Hilliard as charged here, the State had to prove that he knowingly touched Stafford in a rude, insolent, or angry manner and that the touching resulted in bodily injury to Stafford, specifically, pain and/or redness. Ind. Code ยง 35-422-1; Appellant s App. p. 15. On appeal, Hilliard in essence argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the record is so short. See Appellant s Br. p. 4 ( Counsel would state that the shortness of the record is significant . . . . ). However, the fact that the transcript from the trial consists of less than twenty pages has no bearing on whether the State has met its burden of proving each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, we look to the evidence presented. That evidence 3 shows that Hilliard approached Stafford as Stafford was exiting his car and kicked him in the knee, skinning and bruising it and causing him pain. The evidence is sufficient to support Hilliard s conviction. As such, Hilliard is merely asking us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. We therefore affirm the trial court. Affirmed. RILEY, J., and CRONE, J, concur. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
