Shontell Ludy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION 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 Nov 14 2017, 10:29 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. Burns Indianapolis, Indiana Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Angela N. Sanchez Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Shontell Ludy, November 14, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1706-CR-1258 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy M. Jones, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff . Trial Court Cause No. 49G08-1508-CM-30426 Vaidik, Chief Judge. [1] Shontell Ludy appeals her conviction for battery, arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut her claim of self-defense beyond a Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-CR-1258 | November 14, 2017 Page 1 of 2 reasonable doubt. Ludy was a customer at a laundromat in Indianapolis, and she tased an employee during a dispute over a malfunctioning machine. At a bench trial, she testified that the employee pushed her and that she tased him in self-defense. The employee and another customer told a different story, testifying that the employee did not push Ludy and that the tasing was an unprovoked attack. The trial court found Ludy guilty as charged, specifically concluding that the State’s witnesses were more credible than Ludy. Tr. pp. 8992. On appeal, Ludy repeats her claim that the laundromat employee pushed her before she tased him. This is merely a request for us to decide who is more believable, which is the trier of fact’s role, not ours. Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d 878, 882 (Ind. 2017) (“When reviewing a challenge to sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility[.]”). We therefore affirm Ludy’s conviction. [2] Affirmed. Mathias, J., and Crone, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-CR-1258 | November 14, 2017 Page 2 of 2
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.
