State v. Schierkolk-Ames

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 118,708

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

MARY CHRISTINE SCHIERKOLK-AMES,
Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appeal from Shawnee District Court; JEAN M. SCHMIDT, judge. Opinion filed December 14,
2018. Affirmed.

Gerald E. Wells, of Jerry Wells Attorney-at-Law, of Lawrence, for appellant.

Jodi Litfin, assistant solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before MALONE, P.J., PIERRON, J., and BURGESS, S.J.

PER CURIAM: After a bench trial, the district court found Mary Christine
Schierkolk-Ames guilty of the domestic battery of her son, Dakota Schierkolk. Mary
appeals, arguing the evidence was not sufficient to support her conviction. Finding no
error, we affirm.

In May 2017, Dakota was living with Mary. On the day of the incident, Dakota
was in the front yard of their home with his friend, Olivia McGinnis, having a campfire.
Neither of them had been drinking. Mary returned with a friend, James, from Terry's Bar
2

and Grill. Mary smelled like alcohol and seemed drunk. She told Dakota to put out the
fire, which he did. Everyone then went inside.

Dakota was worried about how James was going to get home because both he and
Mary had been drinking. He offered to call a cab for James, which upset Mary. She told
Dakota she wanted to give James a ride home. James ended up calling a cab for himself,
and he left.

Mary "[got] heated up" after James left. She told Dakota, "[Y]ou're a fucking
punk." She walked up to him and smacked a Bluetooth speaker out of his hands. She
pushed him twice in the chest and tried to wrap her hands around his throat. She was not
able to get to his neck, though, because McGinnis stepped in to separate the two. Mary
pushed McGinnis. Dakota then called the police, and he and McGinnis waited outside for
them to arrive.

Officer Trey C. McCluskey of the Topeka Police Department responded to the
call. According to Officer McCluskey, Dakota appeared shaken. He told McCluskey he
had gotten into a physical fight with Mary, and she had pushed him in a rude way.
McGinnis confirmed his story. Mary denied she had been in a fight with Dakota.

The State charged Mary with misdemeanor domestic battery. The case went to a
bench trial. Dakota, McGinnis, and Officer McCluskey testified for the State. Mary also
testified in her own defense.

Mary testified she was sitting on the couch talking to McGinnis when Dakota
entered the house. She said Dakota appeared hostile because he was pacing when she
returned from Terry's, and she felt threatened. As Mary got up to go to the bathroom,
Dakota "mouthed off something." Then McGinnis got in between them, put her hands on
Mary's arm, and told them to stop arguing.
3


The district court found Mary guilty. The court explained the case came down to
credibility. Dakota and McGinnis were more credible because they could articulate
details in a matching chronological order. They had no motive to lie, and neither of them
had been drinking that night. Mary, on the other hand, had obviously been drinking,
which would affect her memory of the night. The court sentenced Mary to 6 months in
jail. Mary appeals.

On appeal, Mary argues the evidence was not sufficient to support her conviction.
"'When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of
review is whether, after reviewing all the evidence in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, the appellate court is convinced a rational factfinder could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation omitted.]" State v. Chandler, 307
Kan. 657, 668, 414 P.3d 713 (2018). We do not reweigh evidence, resolve evidentiary
conflicts, or redetermine witness credibility. 307 Kan. at 668. Only in the rare cases in
which testimony is so incredible that no reasonable fact-finder could find guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt will we reverse a guilty verdict. State v. Matlock, 233 Kan. 1, 5-6, 660
P.2d 945 (1983).

To support Mary's conviction, the State had to prove Mary either (1) knowingly or
recklessly caused bodily harm to a family or household member; or (2) knowingly caused
physical contact with a family or household member in a rude, insulting, or angry
manner. See K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5414(a)(1) and (2).

The parties do not dispute that Mary is Dakota's mother, and they were living
together at the time of the battery. Dakota and McGinnis both testified that Mary pushed
Dakota, and Dakota said she did so in an angry manner. Dakota also testified that at the
time of the battery, his mother was angry at him.

4

This case came down to a credibility determination, and the district court found
Dakota and McGinnis more credible than Mary. We do not redetermine witness
credibility. And Dakota's and McGinnis's testimonies were not so incredible that no
reasonable fact-finder could have found Mary guilty. Looking at the evidence in a light
most favorable to the State, sufficient evidence supports Mary's conviction.

Mary argues she had a fight with Dakota, but it did not rise to the level of a
battery. She notes that Dakota did not suffer any injuries as a result of the battery. But
causing bodily harm is not the only way to commit a battery. The evidence shows Mary
made physical contact with Dakota in a rude or angry manner.

Mary also argues she and Dakota both testified he started the fight. But Dakota
only testified that he was concerned about how James would get home and he would not
let Mary drive. He did not testify that he "confronted [Mary] in a hostile manner" as she
claims. And as previously discussed, the district court found Mary was not credible.

Affirmed.