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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT