Cory Lowden v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 65
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- At a Halloween party in Oct. 2013, Cory Lowden punched Chad Sandefur once; the blow knocked Sandefur unconscious and broke his jaw in two places, requiring two surgeries and prolonged recovery.
- Lowden was charged with aggravated battery under the statute in effect at the time, which punished one who "knowingly or intentionally inflicts injury" that causes protracted loss or impairment of a bodily member or organ.
- At trial Lowden tendered a jury instruction requiring the State to prove he was aware of a high probability that his conduct would cause serious bodily injury (i.e., mens rea applied to the severity/result). The court declined that portion and gave a general definition of "knowingly."
- The jury convicted Lowden; he was sentenced to eight years (two suspended) plus one year probation.
- On appeal Lowden argued (1) the trial court erred by refusing his mens rea instruction and (2) the prosecutor misled a witness during direct examination (prosecutorial misconduct).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lowden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mens rea requirement must apply to the severity/result of injury in aggravated battery | Mens rea applies to the prohibited conduct (inflicting injury); severity is a result/aggravator and not subject to the culpability element | The State must prove Lowden was aware of a high probability his conduct would cause serious bodily injury (apply mens rea to the result) | Court held the culpability requirement applies to the prohibited conduct (inflicting injury) not the severity/result; instruction was correctly refused |
| Whether prosecutor committed misconduct by misleading a witness on direct exam | The prosecutor’s questions referred to who closed the distance before the altercation and were not misleading about the punch itself | The prosecutor’s questioning created an impression Lowden punched Sandefur from behind, producing conflicting testimony | Court found no prosecutorial misconduct; questions read in context did not mislead the witness |
Key Cases Cited
- Mann v. State, 895 N.E.2d 119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (aggravated-battery statute’s prohibited conduct is to "inflict injury on another")
- D.H. v. State, 932 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (culpability requirement attaches to prohibited conduct, not the result; aggravating circumstances not elements)
- Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. 2013) (standard for evaluating refusal of tendered jury instructions)
- Wilson v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1044 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (sufficiency review where evidence supported finding defendant was aware of high probability of serious injury)
- Thomas v. State, 656 N.E.2d 819 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (sufficiency review where severity of injuries supported inference of requisite mens rea)
- Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2006) (procedural rules on preserving prosecutorial-misconduct claims and measuring "grave peril")