ILNews

Court split on mother's battery conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a split decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals, the majority upheld a mother's conviction of battery against her daughter, but one judge felt her conviction had to be overturned in light of a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision.

In Janella Matthew v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-0801-CR-17, Court of Appeals Judges Margret Robb and Patricia Riley affirmed Janella Matthew's Class A misdemeanor battery conviction against her 12-year-old daughter, J.M.

The daughter had misbehaved all day and hit her brother in the face, cursed at her mother, and then locked herself in the bathroom. Matthew got into the bathroom, hit J.M. on her legs and arm with a closed fist, and later hit the daughter several more times with her fist and a belt. She even tried to remove a blanket J.M. was wearing to get a better shot at her daughter with a belt. J.M. later testified the blows from her mother hurt.

The state presented sufficient evidence to prove that Matthew was guilty of battery against her daughter and found her actions toward her daughter didn't constitute reasonable corporate punishment. Matthew's repeated hitting of J.M. with a belt and a closed fist was not reasonable, Judge Robb wrote.

Chief Judge John Baker dissented in a separate opinion, finding that in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Willis v. State, No. 888 N.E.2d, 177, 180 (Ind. 2008), the Court of Appeals should have reversed her conviction. Although he agrees in principle with the result reached by the majority, the facts of the Willis case and the instant case are similar, he said. Both children were repeatedly warned by their parents to stop misbehaving and used progressive forms of discipline before resorting to striking their children repeatedly.

The chief judge agrees that the Supreme Court's decision constitutes a change in Indiana's policy toward child abuse, and even writes in a footnote that it's troubling that Indiana is headed in such a direction of allowing corporal punishment without directive from the legislature to do so.

While Chief Judge Baker wrote the trial courts in both cases concluded the mothers went beyond the boundary of reasonableness, the Supreme Court has instructed the appellate court to second-guess those conclusions as a matter of law. As such, he believes the court is compelled to reverse Matthew's conviction in light of Willis.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT