Suggs v. State
| Decision Date | 28 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 02S03–1508–CR–510.,02S03–1508–CR–510. |
| Citation | 51 N.E.3d 1190 |
| Parties | Leonard L. SUGGS, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
P. Stephen Miller, Fort Wayne, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Katherine Modesitt Cooper, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 02A03–1412–CR–440.
The question presented is whether the sister of a brother who was once married to the defendant's aunt is a “family or household member” within the meaning of the statute elevating misdemeanor battery to a level 6 felony. We think not.
On the evening of August 2, 2014, Leonard L. Suggs and his girlfriend, Evelyn Garrett, attended a family reunion at a bowling alley in Allen County. Suggs and Garrett were dating and had lived together in an intimate relationship for about two years. Family members attending the reunion included ten to twenty children under the age of sixteen. Also in attendance was Vera Warren whose brother had been previously married to Suggs' aunt. Suggs has known Warren all his life and refers to her as “Auntie.”
At some point during the course of the evening Suggs and Garrett became engaged in a verbal altercation. Despite the intervention of several family members and the assistant manager of the bowling alley Suggs refused to leave. The altercation escalated and Suggs threw a beer can at Garrett that missed; he then picked up a bowling ball and threw it at her. The bowling ball grazed Garrett and hit Warren on the left side of her head, which she later testified caused her pain. Warren immediately left the building and called 911. In the meantime Suggs grabbed Garrett by the hair and pulled her down a flight of stairs.
Officers of the Fort Wayne Police Department arrived on the scene a short time thereafter and spoke with Garrett and two of the children who had observed the fracas. The children were extremely upset by what they had seen.
On August 7, 2014 the State charged Suggs with domestic battery as a level 6 felony for his assault on Garrett and battery as a level 6 felony for his assault on Warren. Following a jury trial on October 8, 2014 Suggs was found guilty as charged. Thereafter the trial court sentenced him to two years for each conviction to be served consecutively for an aggregate term of four years with credit for time served in pretrial confinement. Suggs appealed challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for both convictions. Rejecting Suggs' challenge the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See Suggs v. State, 31 N.E.3d 998 (Ind.Ct.App.2015). Having previously granted transfer we now reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to Suggs' level 6 battery conviction. In all other respects we summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals. See Ind.App. R. 58(A).
Indiana Code section 35–42–2–1 provides in relevant part, “a person who knowingly or intentionally: (1) touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner ... commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor[,]” which is elevated to a class A misdemeanor “if it results in bodily injury to any other person.” Ind.Code § 35–42–2–1(b), (c).1 The statute further provides:
[Battery] is a Level 6 felony if ... [t]he offense is committed against a family or household member (as defined in IC 35–31.5–2–128 ) if the person who committed the offense: (A) is at least eighteen (18) years of age; and (B) committed the offense in the physical presence of a child less than sixteen (16) years of age, knowing that the child was present and might be able to see or hear the offense.
I.C. § 35–42–2–1(d)(6). Challenging the sufficiency of the evidence Suggs does not dispute he was at least eighteen years of age at the time of the offense, nor does he contest that the battery occurred in the physical presence of a child less than sixteen years of age or that he knew the child was present and might be able to see or hear the offense. Rather he complains the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Warren was a “family or household member” within the meaning of Indiana Code section 35–31.5–2–128.
When we review a claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621, 639 (Ind.2010). Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support the verdict. Id. And we will affirm the conviction if there is probative evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
Captioned “Family or household member” Indiana Code section 35–31.5–2–128 dictates in pertinent part:
I.C. § 35–31.5–2–128(a) (emphasis added). Focusing on subsections (a)(4) and (5) Suggs insists that Warren is neither his “blood relative” nor is she related by marriage to him. Br. of Appellant at 9. According to Suggs, a relative by marriage connotes “Brother-in-law,” “Sister-in-law,” “Mother-in-law,” “Son-in-law,” and “Daughter-in-law,” and that Warren does not fall within any of these categories. Id. at 11. The State counters, “[t]he statute appears to define ‘family or household member’ in broad terms to capture as many types of familial and household relationships as possible, and, while the statute provides that an individual who is related by blood to the other person is a family or household member, other types of relationships are also clearly protected.” Br. of Appellee at 10–11.
As is apparent by the arguments of both sides we are presented with a question of statutory construction which is a matter of law and is reviewed de novo. When construing a statute our primary goal is to ascertain the legislature's intent. Adams v. State, 960 N.E.2d 793, 798 (Ind.2012). To discern that intent, we look first to the statutory language itself and give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of statutory terms. Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1265 (Ind.2015). “If a statute is unambiguous, that is, susceptible to but one meaning, we must give the statute its clear and plain meaning.” State v. Evans, 810 N.E.2d 335, 337 (Ind.2004) (quotation omitted). However, if a statute admits of more than one interpretation, then it is ambiguous; and we thus resort to rules of statutory interpretation so as to give effect to the legislature's intent. Adams, 960 N.E.2d at 798. “For example, we read the statute as whole, avoiding excessive reliance on a strict, literal meaning or the selective reading of individual words.” Id. And we seek to give a practical application of the statute by construing it in a way that favors public convenience and avoids an absurdity, hardship, or injustice. Merritt v. State, 829 N.E.2d 472, 475 (Ind.2005). Further, criminal statutes must be strictly construed against the State, and “may not be enlarged beyond the fair meaning of the language used....” Yao v. State, 975 N.E.2d 1273, 1279 (Ind.2012) (internal citation omitted).
We have no doubt the “Family or household Member” statute contemplates the inclusion of in-laws. See, e.g., City of Las Vegas v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. ex rel. Cty. of Clark, 124 Nev. 540, 188 P.3d 55, 58–59 (2008) (). But that is not to say the statute is limited to in-laws only. Indeed we agree with the State's contention that the statute appears to define family or household member in broad terms. However, if literally construed the term “related by marriage” would encompass not only the attenuated relationship between Warren and Suggs, but it would also include even far more attenuated relationships as well, say for example, the aunts and uncles of second cousins three times removed.
We are not persuaded that by use of the term “related by marriage” the legislature intended to include an infinite variety of relationships whose only connection is a marriage or series of marriages identified somewhere on the remote branches of a family tree. The statute is thus ambiguous in that it admits of more than one interpretation. We therefore seek to give a practical application to the meaning of the statute by construing it in a way that avoids absurdity. See Merritt, 829 N.E.2d at 475.
“Related by marriage” is commonly referred to as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leonard v. State
...we look first to the statutory language itself and give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of statutory terms." Suggs v. State , 51 N.E.3d 1190, 1193 (Ind. 2016) (citation omitted). Here, under the plain language of subsection (d) the State is required to prove culpability ("knowingly......
-
State v. Hancock
...by statute. We are thus presented with a question of statutory construction which is a matter of law we review de novo. Suggs v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1190, 1193 (Ind.2016). When construing a statute our primary goal is to ascertain the legislature's intent. Adams v. State, 960 N.E.2d 793, 798 (......
-
Kent v. Kerr (In re Estate of Kent)
...applies only post-mortem. Our primary goal in reviewing statutes is to determine and follow the legislature's intent. Suggs v. State , 51 N.E.3d 1190, 1193 (Ind. 2016). "The best indicator of legislative intent is the statutory language, and where the statute is clear and unambiguous, we ap......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...we look first to the statutory language itself and give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of statutory terms." Suggs v. State , 51 N.E.3d 1190, 1193 (Ind. 2016) (citation omitted). "Statutes relating to the same subject matter are in pari materia (on the same subject) and should be c......