True v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1816
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- True was convicted of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.
- True was charged with Class D felony domestic battery based on presence of a child.
- Trial court allowed a Class A misdemeanor domestic battery instruction as a lesser included offense of the charged D felony.
- Evidence showed presence of children in the home; there was conflict about whether True was present.
- Jury found A misdemeanor guilty and not guilty of D felonies; appellate reversal ordered.
- Court remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the lesser included offense instruction proper given the evidence? | True argues no serious evidentiary dispute supports the instruction. | State asserts presence of a child distinguishes offenses and warrants instruction. | Reversible error to give instruction at State's request; no serious evidentiary dispute. |
| Was there a serious evidentiary dispute about the presence of a child element? | Presence-of-child dispute not credibly argued by True. | State contends a factual dispute existed. | No serious evidentiary dispute; instruction improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1098 (Ind.1997) (focus on avoiding compromise verdict when elements are not in dispute)
- Watts v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind.2008) (reversible error when State obtains lesser offense over objection without evidentiary support)
- Leon v. State, 525 N.E.2d 331 (Ind.1988) (avoid compromise verdict when element distinguishing offenses is not seriously disputed)
- McNary v. State, 428 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind.1981) (caution against giving lesser offense when evidence supports only greater offense)
- Boyd v. State, 889 N.E.2d 321 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (presence/hearing/seeing test for presence of child in domestic battery)
- Wilkins v. State, 716 N.E.2d 955 (Ind.1999) (standard de novo review when no explicit finding of evidentiary dispute)