ILNews

COA affirms belt considered a deadly weapon in domestic battery case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The belt used by a man to repeatedly strike his girlfriend qualifies as a deadly weapon and supports elevating his battery conviction to a Class C felony, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Friday.

Dee Ward was convicted of the felony battery charge and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery for hitting his sometimes girlfriend J.M. with a leather belt from her waist to her ankles. The incident occurred at Ward’s home, and he dropped her off the next morning at her mother and stepfather’s home. When they saw the severe bruising and injuries to J.M.’s body, as well as how much pain she was in, they called 911.

Paramedic Linda Hodge-McKinney, who is trained in dealing with domestic violence cases, treated J.M. at her home and decided, based on the injuries and potential for internal injuries, J.M. needed to go to the hospital. At the hospital, forensic nurse Julie Morrison treated J.M. Both women asked J.M. in the course of treatment what had happened and J.M. told them Ward was responsible for the injuries.

When it came time for Ward’s trial, J.M. was considered a missing person. Because she was not around to give a deposition, the state asked for – and the trial court allowed – the medical personnel to testify as to what J.M. told her.

In Dee Ward v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1401-CR-25, Ward claimed that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated. But the admission of the victim’s statements to Hodge-McKinney and Morrison did not violate Ward’s confrontation rights because the statements were not testimonial. The medical personnel asked J.M. about her injuries and who caused them because they wanted to make sure that J.M. was safe and that her attacker was not present.

Ward also argued that the evidence is insufficient to prove that the belt used during the battery constituted a deadly weapon. But based on the definition of Class C felony battery, the belt qualifies because J.M. suffered welts and serious bruising from her waist to her ankles, as well as severe pain. J.M. was also at risk for internal injuries as a result of the beating.

“Given the serious nature of J.M.’s injuries and the severe pain suffered by J.M., we cannot say that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the trial court’s determination that the belt used during the commission of the battery qualified as a deadly weapon. Ward’s claim to the contrary amounts to nothing more than a request for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote.
 

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT