Preview:

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: TIMOTHY J. BURNS Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Jan 22 2009, 9:01 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana MATTHEW WHITMIRE Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
BILLY MASTERS, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A04-0806-CR-320

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable David Certo, Judge The Honorable Valerie Horvath, Commissioner Cause No. 49G21-0803-CM-68701

January 22, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge

Billy Masters appeals his conviction of invasion of privacy, a Class A misdemeanor.1 Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Officer Michael Tharp of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department was sent to the home of Chaun Ray to investigate a disagreement between Ray and her son. Upon arrival, Officer Tharp found three individuals in the home: Ray, her son, and Masters. Officer Tharp learned Ray had a protective order against Masters. Ray and Masters both knew about the protective order and Officer Tharp arrested Masters for violating it. The State charged Masters with Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. After a bench trial, the court entered a judgment of conviction. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Our standard of review for sufficiency of evidence questions is: When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. 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 to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.
1

Ind. Code

Download Billy Masters v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law