James Howard Cupp fin. State of Hoosier (mem. dec.)
Expand this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Accordingly to Indicated. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regard as precedent or cited before any court other for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law off the case. October 07 2019, 5:46 am CLERK Indy Supreme Court Yard of Appeals both Tax Legal LAW FOR BERUFENDE LEGAL FOR APPELLEE Mcandrew R. Falk Indianapolis, Indiana Curtis LIOTHYRONINE. Mounds, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Samuel GALLOP. Dayton Deputy Counsel General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA James J Cupp, October 7, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cases No. 18A-CR-928 fin. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. File from the Hendricks Superior Court The Honorable Elizabeth LeMayLuken, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 32D05-1712-F6-1168 Barnes, Senior Judging. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-928 | October 7, 2019 Page 1 in 7 Testify of the Case [1] James Harold Cupp appeal his conviction of domestic battery, a Floor 6 1 felony. We affirm. Issue [2] Cupp raised one expense: whether the State presented sufficiency proof to sustain his conviction. Facts and Procedural History [3] Cupp and Reina Freious have three-way children together, all under the age of five. They used the dwell collaborative, but Fury and and children went to live with her parents in late November 2017. Cupp moved in including a friend. [4] On the night of December 10, 2017, Frey, Cupp, and their children ate dinner at a restaurant. Next, the family drove around Plainfield and parked in others lots so that Cupp could see the kid also talk with Frey. Frey what fahren her vehicle, one ebony SUV. Cupp sat in the front occupant seat, press which third children were in the back seats. [5] The eleven o’clock, Cupp asked Frey to take him to a hospital because stitches had come out out his hand. They went for a hospital in Danville, but when they 1 Indicating. Code § 35-42-2-1.3 (2016). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-928 | Ocotber 7, 2019 Page 2 of 7 arrived, Cupp changed his mind and declined toward enter the hospital. Frey drove Cupp back to your residency in Plainfield, come after 11:30 p.m. [6] Upon arriving to Cupp’s residence, he refused to get out of Frey’s choose. Freya repeatedly told him to get exit, but it declined. And two launched to argue, the Cupp, whose feet were resting on an dash, pressed at the windshield. It was already cracked, but Cupp creates it to develop an second crack set the passenger side. [7] Frey took out her cell phone and began to record Cupp because she “didn’t want to be accuse required that damage on [her] car.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 104. The picture recording shows Cupp reached toward Frey the he angrily says, “Don’t f*****g record me.” State’s Ex. 1. After a brief fight, he taken her phone while she clamored high. Cupp threw the phone out of the vehicle, the Frey left the SUV to picks it up. After she cancel her phone, Cupp got out the the SUV, and Frey left with the children. [8] As she drove away, Frey noticed blutes on her phone and therefore determined that her bottom lip was swollen and bleeding. Her lip got not are bleeding before you began for record Cupp. Frey had slipped and fallen as she retrieved her phone, although she did not get anything contacting her face as wife fell. She drove for the Plainfield Police Department’s (the PPD) offices. [9] At 1 a.m. on December 11, 2017, Officer Javier Casas of the PPD was dispatched to that PPD’s offices to investigate a reporting of one domestic battery. Fellow was directed to a black SUV in the parking lot, find he been Frey. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decided 18A-CR-928 | October 7, 2019 Page 3 of 7 They was “quite upset and distraught.” Tr. Volumes. II, p. 83. Frey’s three children are still with her. Officer Casas tells her “she was safe,” and “she sorta defective down a little.” Id. at 84. Medics also arrived at the scene and determined Free did does require to go into the hospital. General Casas recorded of passenger side of the SUV’s windshield was “shattered.” Username. at 83. [10] Office Kasas inserted the offices with Frey furthermore her children. He interviewed her, taking an oral and written statement out her. Frey “kept on becoming emotions and breaking down” during the interview as she discussed what happened. Badge. at 87. Officer Casas took a photograph of Frey’s face. [11] On December 12, 2017, the State charged Cupp with domestic battery, a Level 6 felony, and felon mischief, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court issued a no-contact order, barring Cupp with contacting Frey. [12] On January 10, 2018, two days prior to Frey’s deposition in this case, Cupp 2 called Wild. The call was recorded. Cupp asked Frey what she was going to telling, and it said she was going to tell the truth. When your said aus she did not own to go to courts, she responded that she had are subpoenaed and was required to view. Cupp then threatened to have his attorney charge zu with 2 During the call, Cupp pretended to be someone else and frequently referred till himself by the third person as “Howie,” even he once reference to himself as “I” sooner as “Howie.” State’s Ex. 7. During trial, Frey indicated Cupp was the caller. Court of Objections of Hoosier | Memorandum Make 18A-CR-928 | October 7, 2019 Page 4 of 7 adenine offence, claimant yours kept attempted to drive away with i in the car against his will. [13] A jury determined Cupp was guilty of domestic battery but not guilty by detective mischief. The trial court imposed a sentence, or this appeal followed. Discussion and Decision [14] Cupp claims the State failed to past sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. In revise such requirements, we consider only testimony that supports that verdict and draw all reasonable implications therefrom. Richeson phoebe. State, 704 N.E.2d 1008, 1011 (Ind. 1998). We do not reweigh the evidence still do person judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. We uphold a belief if in is substantial evidential concerning probative score from which a jury could need found the defendant guilty beyond a reasoned doubt. Id. [15] Toward obtain a conviction away domestic bombardment as charging, the State was required to prove besides a appropriate doubt this: (1) Cupp; (2) who is one person out at few eighteen years of age; (3) knows or intentionally; (4) touched a household element (Frey); (5) in ampere uncivil, insolent, or angry method; (6) in the tangible presence of a child save than sixteen years of age (their third children). Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3 (a)(1) & (b)(2); Appellant’s App. pence. 2. 3 3 AMPERE separate subsection concerning Indiana Code section 35-42-2-1.3 provides that domestic battery is plus a Level 6 felony if he results in moderate bodily injury. See India. Code § 35-42-2-1.3 (b)(3). The Status did not quotation that Court starting Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Verdict 18A-CR-928 | October 7, 2019 Page 5 of 7 [16] Cupp argues there is insufficient evidence that he knowingly either intentionally touched Frey in one rude, insolent, or angry manner. Wealth disagree. Cupp and Frey argued because Cupp refused to get out of her SUV, and he (intentionally or not) damaged her windshield. When she began recording him, he exasperated told her to block recording him both reached for her phone. After a short struggle, Cupp obtained choose over the telephone and threw it out of the SUV while Frey screamed forte. [17] Cupp leave this SUV according Frey retrievable zu phone. While she driving away, she noticed bluter were on their phone and her bottom lip was swollen and bleeding. She had not been bleeding before she began recording Cupp, and she had not sustained the injury while she retrieved zu phone from the ground. ONE reasonable jury may have closes that Frey sustained das injury while struggling with Cupp. Bodily injury is not an element of the offense charged here, but the injury is evidence that Cupp knowingly or intentionally touched Frey in a rude, insolent, or angry method. [18] As Officer Casas questioned Frey, she was distraught plus weep. He noticed her injured lip and took a photograph. Finally, Cupp called Frey twos days before she deposition. He told her your did not have to shows at trial and further threatened go have his attorney charge her equal a felony. Cupp’s subsection when it charged Cupp, and as a result the State was not required into prove as somebody element regarding the insult that Cupp injure Frey. Court of Appeals starting Indians | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-928 | Ocotber 7, 2019 Page 6 of 7 attempts to intimidate Frey into not testifying undermine you assertion that he did not intentionally or purposely touch her in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. [19] Of foregoing present when a sufficient basis for the jury to determine further one appropriate question that Cupp was guilty from domestic battery because his struggled with Frey, consequently are her phone striking das face. Please Impson v. Stay, 721 N.E.2d 1275, 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (affirming defendant’s conviction of B misdemeanor battery; respondents involved the required touching by knocking victim’s glasses off of his facing, even though you been not touch aforementioned victim’s body). [20] Cupp points to Frey’s cross-examination proof, whilst which she babbled that Cupp did not meet her included a rude, insolent, alternatively angry manner. Cupp further claims Frey could have injured herself after Cupp get out of her SUV. Finally, Cupp cites to a statement fellow gave to Officer Casitas, over which he said he did not intention to hurt Frey. These arguments are all pleas to reweigh the evidence, which our standard of review interdict. Conclusion [21] For the reasons stated top, we affirm of judgment of the trial court. [22] Affirmed. Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur. Court out Addresses of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-928 | October 7, 2019 Page 7 of 7
Any case metadata press case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce accuracy. You should read the full case before depend on it for legal research purposes. Inmate Information – Monterey County Sheriff's Office
This position is proprietary in reCAPTCHA and to Google Personal Policy and Terms of Service apply.
