981 N.E.2d 59
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Mateo and Alberto Santos arrived at the party; Mateo slashed tires on Isley's car.
- Mateo taunted partygoers and led a group into an alley where the confrontation occurred; Mateo had two knives, Santos one.
- Bernard Brock and Clarence Brock chased Mateo and Santos; Santos stabbed Bernard; Mateo stabbed Bernard.
- Bernard sustained extensive injuries requiring hospital care and long-term recovery; Bernard was helicoptered to Fort Wayne for treatment.
- Mateo was charged with attempted murder and aggravated battery; trial court denied a motion to admit gang-affiliation evidence under Rule 404(b).
- Jury found Mateo guilty of aggravated battery, not guilty of attempted murder; he was sentenced to 20 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of gang evidence | Mateo | Mateo | Exclusion proper; gang evidence not admissible under 404(b) |
| Admission and foundation of knives | Mateo | Mateo | Chain of custody properly established; knives properly admitted |
| Prosecutorial misconduct re perjured testimony | Mateo | Mateo | No misconduct; arguments failed to show fundamental error |
| Accomplice-liability instructions | Mateo | Mateo | Instructions appropriate; sufficient evidence supported accomplice liability |
| Sufficiency of the evidence / self-defense | Mateo | Mateo | Evidence sufficient to sustain aggravated-battery conviction; self-defense rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- Cline v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2000) (limits admissibility of prior acts to non-propensity purposes)
- Williams v. State, 690 N.E.2d 162 (Ind. 1997) (narrows gang-evidence exception for motive)
- Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. 1997) (relevance and balancing of Rule 404(b) factors)
- Bell v. State, 610 N.E.2d 229 (Ind. 1993) (fungible evidence chain-of-custody foundation principles)
- Trotter v. State, 559 N.E.2d 585 (Ind. 1990) (nonfungible evidence chain-of-custody foundation principles)
- Evans v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1072 (Ind. 2000) (multiple-stab wounds as evidence of intent)
- Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. 2002) (self-defense burden on State to disprove elements)
- Snell v. State, 866 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (jury instructions reviewed for prejudice and accuracy)
- Stringer v. State, 853 N.E.2d 543 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (standard for jury-instruction review and prejudice)
- Hubbard v. State, 742 N.E.2d 919 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (instruction evaluation framework)
- O’Connell v. State, 742 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. 2001) (multiple-victim aggravating considerations in sentencing)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard in sentencing reviews)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (recidivism risk as valid aggravator; LSIR considerations)
- Malenchik v. State, 928 N.E.2d 564 (Ind. 2010) (LSIR scores as valid sentencing consideration)
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (rule governing reconsideration of sentence for appropriateness)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (scope of appellate review for sentence appropriateness)