Patrick Holtsclaw 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. FILED Jul 11 2008, 8:52 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: WILLIAM F. THOMS, JR. Thoms & Thoms Indianapolis, Indiana STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana SHELLEY M. JOHNSON Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA PATRICK HOLTSCLAW, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 49A04-0712-CR-716 APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Louis F. Rosenberg, Magistrate Cause No. 49F10-0705-CM-88519 July 11, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY, Judge Patrick Holtsclaw appeals his conviction of battery. 1 Holtsclaw raises one issue on appeal: whether the State s evidence was sufficient to prove the gun was not fired accidentally. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 21, 2007, Holtsclaw was playing with a BB gun and socializing with Carlos, the owner of the BB gun, and several others. Some boys, including the fourteenyear-old victim, were skateboarding in the general area. The victim and his friends approached Holtsclaw and his friends to see what they were doing. Holtsclaw asked the victim if he could shoot him with the BB gun. The victim initially ignored the question and began to leave. Holtsclaw repeatedly asked the victim if he could shoot him. The victim asked Holtsclaw not to shoot him and told Holtsclaw he has a heart condition. As the victim began to leave, he looked over his shoulder and saw Holtsclaw shoot. The BB struck the victim in the center of his back causing a red mark and a welt. The victim and a witness called the police. After assessing the victim and taking his statement, the officer arrested Holtsclaw. Holtsclaw was charged with battery and criminal recklessness. He was convicted after a bench trial of battery; the criminal recklessness finding was merged into the battery conviction. DISCUSSION AND DECISION The State provided sufficient evidence Holtsclaw intended to commit battery. Upon a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, a reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, and respects 1 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1. 2 the [factfinder s] exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005) (quoting Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625, 627 (Ind. 2001)). We must affirm if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 126. A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1. Holtsclaw argues the State did not prove he acted intentionally. A person engages in conduct intentionally if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(a). Intent is a mental function. Lush v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1191, 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Absent an admission by the defendant, it must be determined from a consideration of the defendant s conduct and the natural and usual consequences thereof. Id. Holtsclaw s actions and statements prior to the shooting demonstrate he acted intentionally. Holtsclaw asked the victim multiple times if he could shoot him. He asked the victim to stop moving so he could shoot him. Holtsclaw shot the victim in the center of his back. Holtsclaw argues the position of the BB gun at the time of the shooting should have created reasonable doubt about whether he intended to shoot the victim. Holtsclaw invites us to reweigh the evidence, which we may not do. See McHenry, 820 N.E.2d at 126. 3 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Affirmed. VAIDIK, J., and MATHIAS, 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.
