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: MARK SMALL Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana JANINE STECK HUFFMAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J. CHRISTOPHER SARGENT, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FILED
Apr 14 2010, 10:32 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

No. 38A02-0911-CR-1153

APPEAL FROM THE JAY SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Brian D. Hutchinson, Special Judge Cause No. 38D01-0810-FD-149

April 14, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION FRIEDLANDER, Judge

J. Christopher Sargent appeals his conviction for Obstruction of Justice,1 a class D felony. Sargent presents as the sole issue on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We affirm. On February 19, 2008, Sargent was charged with battery resulting in bodily injury to a pregnant woman, a class C felony. The alleged victim was his live-in girlfriend, Heather Nibarger.2 At a pretrial hearing on August 15, the trial court scheduled Sargents jury trial for September 25, 2008. Sargent was being held on the battery charge in the Jay County Jail pending trial. While incarcerated, Sargent spoke with Nibarger on a daily basis. These telephone conversations were recorded, as are all inmate calls at the facility. On August 15, after learning of the trial setting, Nibarger left the couples home in Dunkirk to stay with her mother in Elkhart. Following her move, Nibarger continued to have regular communication with Sargent. Two particular telephone conversations are relevant to this case. These both occurred on the evening of August 23 and were initiated by Sargent calling Nibarger at her mothers home. During the conversations, Sargent indicated that he wanted/needed her to "refuse the subpoena", "get gone", "play f***ing duck and dodge", and "[c]ross the state line." Appellant's Appendix at 105, 106, 116, and 117, respectively. He explained: "If you show up, Im f***ed. If they get you and f***ing make you show up, Im still f***ed. Because

1 2

Ind. Code Ann.

Download Christopher J. Sargent v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law