Chad Matthew McClellan v. State of Indiana
13 N.E.3d 546
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- McClellan ambushed Burke at a Noblesville mobile home park, striking with a metal pipe and then using a stun gun; Burke was injured and briefly unconscious, and bystanders assisted in restraining McClellan until deputies arrived; McClellan was charged with two Class C felonies and one Class B misdemeanor, but the trial court granted a directed verdict removing the deadly weapon element from one count; the jury convicted McClellan of Class C felony battery and Class B misdemeanor battery, with concurrent sentencing.”,
- McClellan appealed the C felony battery conviction arguing the State failed to prove the offense was committed by means of a deadly weapon.
- The State maintained the stun gun, as used, could be a deadly weapon, and the evidence showed an ability to cause serious bodily injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence that the battery was committed by means of a deadly weapon? | State contends the stun gun was capable of causing serious bodily injury and used to threaten Burke. | McClellan argues the stun gun did not cause serious injury and Burke did not fear the weapon. | Yes; the stun gun was a deadly weapon under the statute based on its use and potential to cause serious injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gleason v. State, 965 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (deadly-weapon analysis focuses on use, not original purpose; device readily capable of causing serious injury)
- Buckner v. State, 857 N.E.2d 1011 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (stun gun evidence supports deadly-weapon finding)
- Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in battery cases)