Date: 03-15-2016

Case Style: Joseph Matters v. State of Indiana

Case Number: 49A02-1509-CR-1421

Judge: Cale J. Bradford

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Plaintiff's Attorney: Gregory F. Zoeller, Lyubov Gore

Defendant's Attorney: Michael R. Fisher

Description: Matters and Bonner had dated and lived together for two and one-half years
before breaking up in July of 2015. On July 19, 2015, Bonner drove to the
Indianapolis apartment of mutual friend Brandon Bailey. Matters became
upset when he heard of Bonner’s visit and followed her there, both arriving
around 10:45 p.m. Matters “whipped his car up next to” Bonner’s and started
screaming and yelling, banging on the glass, and calling her names through the
window. Tr. p. 8. When Bonner put the car into park, the doors unlocked,
allowing Matters to open the driver’s door and strike Bonner on the left side of
her face. Bonner had recently had surgery to remove wisdom teeth, and
Matters was aware that she had stiches in her mouth. Matters’s strike caused
Bonner pain and bleeding and tore open a few stiches. On July 29, 2015, the
State charged Matters with Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, Class A
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-49A02-1509-CR-1421 | March 15, 2016 Page 3 of 4
misdemeanor battery, and Class A misdemeanor interference with the reporting
of a crime. On August 26, 2015, the trial court found Matters guilty of Class A
misdemeanor battery and sentenced him to 180 days of incarceration, with all
but time served suspended to probation.
Discussion and Decision
[3] Matters contends that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain
his conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither
weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility. Jordan v. State, 656
N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995). We look only to the evidence of probative value
and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom which support the verdict.
Id. If from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative value from which a
reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt, we will affirm the conviction. Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d
720, 724 (Ind. 1993). Pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-42-1-1(b), “a person
who knowingly or intentionally … touches another person in a rude, insolent,
or angry manner … commits battery … a Class A misdemeanor if it results in
bodily injury to any other person.” Pursuant to what is now Indiana Code
section 35-31.5-2-29, “‘Bodily injury’ means any impairment of physical
condition, including physical pain.”
[4] Matters argues only that the State failed to establish that he touched Bonner in
a rude, insolent, or angry manner or that he did so knowingly. The evidence,
however, indicates that Matters followed Bonner and, when he found her,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-49A02-1509-CR-1421 | March 15, 2016 Page 4 of 4
began banging on her window, yelling and screaming at her, and calling her
names. As soon as Matters was able, he reached into Bonner’s vehicle and
struck her in the face. The clear evidence of Matters’s anger toward Bonner,
along with the undisputed evidence of the blow and bodily injury it caused, is
sufficient to sustain a finding that he knowingly touched her in a rude, insolent,
or angry manner.

Outcome: Matters’s argument is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: