Matthew Manuel v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 370
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Manuel was convicted of domestic battery, a Class D felony, after a bench trial, and appeals on evidentiary/ sufficiency issues.
- Facts: Manuel and D.S. lived together eight years with a child; on Sept. 28, 2011, an incident involving laptops, a cell phone, and a 911 call occurred.
- Manuel allegedly struck D.S. with a laptop, hit her with a cell phone, and choked her; officers observed D.S. distressed but without visible injuries.
- The State charged four counts (two domestic battery, one battery of a family/household member, one battery); the court merged counts at sentencing.
- The issue on appeal is (1) cross-examining a witness about a past incident, (2) whether the State could ask a witness if she testified truthfully, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence for a Class D felony domestic battery.
- The Court affirmed, holding no abuse of discretion in cross-examination or rehabilitation questions and sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion excluding cross-examination | Manuel argues for cross-examining D.S. about recantation | Manuel contends relevance to credibility | No abuse; evidence excluded under Evid. R. 608(b) was proper |
| Whether the State could rehabilitate a witness by asking about truthfulness | State seeks to rehabilitate credibility after attack | Bolstering/ improper under Evid. R. 704(b) | No abuse; questioning properly rehabilitated witness because it refuted the specific attack on credibility |
| Whether sufficient evidence showed domestic battery in the presence of a child | State proved presence in presence of child under I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3 | No proof the child was present or could hear/see the act | Sufficient evidence; child presence satisfied by reasonable foreseeability of hearing/seeing the act |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyd v. State, 889 N.E.2d 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (presence defined as possible sight or hearing of a child)
- True v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (presence requires a child might see or hear the offense)
- Nunley v. State, 916 N.E.2d 712 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (evidence of false accusation barred under Evid. R. 608(b))
- Embry v. State, 923 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (rehabilitating a witness after cross-examination attack on credibility)
- Morrell v. State, 933 N.E.2d 492 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (inconsistent testimony affects weight, not inexorable incredibility of witness)