protection of the victim.” Highbaugh, 773 N.E.2d at 251. While we acknowledge Officer Wheeler’s conflicting testimony, it is well established that inconsistencies in the evidence are for the fact-finder to evaluate and “it is the role of the factfinder, not the reviewing court, to determine what evidence to believe.” Mendoza v. State, 869 N.E.2d 546, 554 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied. Thus, we decline Smith’s invitation for us to reweigh the evidence presented at trial and, instead, conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain the robbery conviction. B. Aggravated Battery Smith also argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support his aggravated battery conviction. Specifically, Smith argues that Officer Wheeler’s broken tooth is not .1985) (<HOLDING>). In fact, we are unable to find an appellate
holding specific intent to cause serious bodily injury may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the body holding that the hip is part of the body as opposed to part of the leg and where the effects of the loss of a member extend to other parts of the body and interfere with their efficiency the scheduled allowance for the lost member is not exclusive holding that the natural meaning of the phrase serving a term of imprisonment denotes no more or less than that definable period of time during which a prisoner must be confined in order to complete or satisfy the prison term or sentence which has been ordered recognizing that although there was no property in a dead body at common law  the one whose duty it is to care for the body of the deceased is entitled to possession of the body as it is when death comes and that it is an actionable wrong for another to interfere with that right by withholding the body or mutilating it in any way holding that teeth are separate definable parts of the body sufficient to bring them within the statutory term bodily member or organ 