ILNews

COA affirms angry ex-boyfriend’s battery convictions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A northern Indiana man, angry that his ex-girlfriend was in a new relationship, had his convictions of battery by means of a deadly weapon upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The convictions stemmed from his ramming of the new boyfriend’s car with his.

Jennifer Kaminski’s new boyfriend, Andrew Bolinger, followed her home from his house in his friend Anthony Badzinski’s car. Bolinger was concerned for Kaminski’s safety because Michael Bowser was not happy his ex-girlfriend was seeing Bolinger. She stopped in a business’s driveway after seeing Bowser’s car, and he approached her car and was angry. He pulled away in his car after seeing Bolinger and Badzinski drive up.

But Bowser turned his car around and sped down the road, leaving his lane and hitting Badzinski’s parked car, seriously injuring the two.

He was charged with eight counts and convicted of all charges, but the court only entered judgment on two Class C felony convictions of battery by a deadly weapon.

In Michael Bowser v. State of Indiana, 71A03-1208-CR-361, Michael Bowser appealed his convictions, arguing the trial court should have granted his motion to sever the battery charges from the criminal recklessness charges. Bowser wasn’t entitled to severance as a matter of right based on the statute, but a court does have discretion in granting severance in certain cases, including complexity of the evidence to be offered.

“Here, there were a number of charged offenses but the evidence was not complex, consisting of testimony from five witnesses and twenty-one exhibits, primarily photographs,” Senior Judge Betty Barteau wrote. Also, “it is reasonable to conclude that the jury was able to distinguish the evidence and apply the law intelligently because the charged offenses differed only in levels of mental culpability, whether a deadly weapon was used, and the level of harm inflicted upon the victims.”

The evidence also supports that Bowser knowingly or intentionally battered the two men. The court rejected his argument that the collision was an accident.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT