Opinion
24A-CR-368
06-25-2024
Matthew Sanchez, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
Attorney for Appellant Ainuddin Ahmed Carmel, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Kelly A. Loy Assistant Section Chief, Criminal Section Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Decatur Superior Court The Honorable Matthew D. Bailey, Judge The Honorable Kenneth R. Bass, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 16D01-2305-CM-485
Attorney for Appellant Ainuddin Ahmed Carmel, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana
Kelly A. Loy Assistant Section Chief, Criminal Section Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BRADFORD, JUDGE
Case Summary
[¶1] After an altercation with his wife and her father, Matthew Sanchez was charged with and convicted of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. Sanchez contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Concluding otherwise, we affirm.
Sanchez has filed a motion for oral argument, which we denied in an order dated June 14, 2024.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] In May of 2023, Sanchez and his wife of seven years, Jessica, were experiencing marital problems. Sanchez had, at some point, threatened to hurt Jessica if she were ever to leave him.
[¶3] During the night of May 10, 2023, Sanchez became angry with and yelled at Jessica because she had posted a photograph of their children on her social media account without tagging him. The next day, Sanchez became angry with Jessica because he had been unable to find his wallet and she had not been available by telephone because she was working on her student-teaching requirement. Later that afternoon, Sanchez yelled and screamed profanities at Jessica in the couple's kitchen. The couple's three children, who were present at the time of the argument, became scared and ran into the backyard, where Jessica eventually followed. The situation was eventually diffused, and Sanchez and Jessica traveled separately to their son's soccer game.
[¶4] When Jessica returned home after the soccer game, Sanchez was in the kitchen drinking a beer, and Jessica could tell by his body language and facial expressions that "she was walking into trouble." Tr. Vol. II p. 79. Sanchez again became angry and "started in on" Jessica. Tr. Vol. II p. 79. Jessica did not want to argue in front of the couple's children, so she left the kitchen and took the children to the bathroom for a bubble bath. Sanchez followed Jessica into the bathroom and continued to yell and berate her in front of the children. Jessica asked Sanchez to leave the bathroom, telling him that she did not feel comfortable or safe, but Sanchez would not leave. Afraid that things were "getting out of control," Jessica eventually called her parents. Tr. Vol. II p. 81.
[¶5] After receiving Jessica's call, her father, Rick Chambers, went to the couple's house to check on Jessica. When Chambers arrived, Sanchez indicated that he would call the police if Chambers entered the house. Chambers responded, "Jessica, I am not coming inside. I'm here to see if you're ok." Tr. Vol. II p. 55. Chambers observed that Sanchez, who was sitting on the couch, looked upset. After a few moments, Jessica returned to the bathroom, where the children were still in the bathtub.
[¶6] Then, in what ended up being an unsuccessful attempt to diffuse the situation, Chambers asked Sanchez, "[D]o we need to take this outside?" Tr. Vol. II p. 56. Sanchez approached Chambers and said, "you want some of this?" Tr. Vol. II p. 56. As Chambers attempted to retreat and to raise his hands to block Sanchez's advance, Sanchez punched Chambers in the left side of his face, breaking his glasses. Sanchez continued to punch Chambers and, as Sanchez "load[ed] up for another punch," Chambers asked him "Matt, what are you doing? You're throwing away your family." Tr. Vol. II p. 57. After Sanchez punched Chambers again, Chambers attempted to punch Sanchez, with the attempted punch "glanc[ing] across [Sanchez's] right shoulder." Tr. Vol. II p. 57. Sanchez punched Chambers again, hitting him on the right side of his face, before shoving him backwards over some patio furniture.
[¶7] Jessica rushed back to the door after hearing a commotion and saw Sanchez punching Chambers. Jessica was terrified and, after seeing Chambers fall backwards over the patio furniture, yelled "stop, stop." Tr. Vol. II p. 83. Fearing that Chambers had no way to protect himself, Jessica "stepped out and ... tried to -- to physically just put [herself] in the middle." Tr. Vol. II p. 83. Sanchez took his arm, put it across Jessica's chest, and forcibly pushed her back towards the house, causing her to stumble backwards. Jessica was terrified by Sanchez's actions and "the look in his eyes," so she ran back inside the house and called the police. Tr. Vol. p. II p. 83.
[¶8] On May 12, 2023, the State charged Sanchez with Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. The matter proceeded to a bench trial, during which Jessica testified that she had called the police because she "was really afraid. I had just seen [Sanchez] really hurt my dad, push me. I was afraid for my safety and the kids' safety." Tr. Vol. II p. 69. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found Sanchez guilty as charged.
Discussion and Decision
[¶9] Sanchez contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.
While Sanchez's Appellant's Brief contains a statement of the issue, it does not contain a summary of the argument as required by Appellate Rule 46(A). We would kindly remind counsel to comply with all provisions of Rule 46 going forward.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (cleaned up). Stated differently, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, "we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the convictions, neither reweighing evidence nor reassessing witness credibility[,]" and "affirm the judgment unless no reasonable factfinder could find the defendant guilty." Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947, 958 (Ind. 2016).
[¶10] Indiana Code section 35-42-2-1.3(a) provides that "a person who knowingly or intentionally: (1) touches a family or household member in a rude, insolent, or angry manner . . . commits domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor." "A person engages in conduct 'intentionally' if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so." Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(a). "A person engages in conduct 'knowingly' if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so." Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b).
[¶11] In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction, Sanchez asserts that the State failed to prove "that he [had] acted knowingly or with intent and that he had [had] an anger, insolence, or rudeness to the alleged victim when the alleged touch happened." Appellant's Br. p. 19 (emphasis omitted). Sanchez seems to argue that the evidence at trial demonstrated that his act of pushing Jessica had been inadvertent when she had "interceded in an ongoing physical fight" between Sanchez and her father. Appellant's Br. p. 20. He also claims that "there was absolutely no evidence to indicate, or even a reasonable inference to indicate that [he had been] angry with [Jessica] when this push occurred." Appellant's Br. p. 20. We disagree.
[¶12] The evidence supports the trial court's finding that Sanchez's act of pushing Jessica had not been inadvertent. Jessica testified that, after she had approached Sanchez and Chambers, yelling at them to stop fighting, Sanchez had taken his arm, put it across Jessica's chest, and shoved her backwards. The record supports the reasonable inference that Sanchez had deliberately and purposefully pushed Jessica or, at a minimum, that he had been aware of a high probability that he was doing so. See Palacios v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1026, 1035 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (concluding that the evidence had been sufficient to sustain a domestic-battery conviction despite defendant's claim that the touching had been accidental).
[¶13] The evidence also supports the trial court's determination that the touching had been committed in a rude, angry, or insolent manner. The evidence indicates that Sanchez had acted in an angry manner when he had pushed Jessica. Jessica testified that "the look in [Sanchez's] eyes when he [pushed her] was something [that she] will never forget. They were just black." Tr. Vol. II p. 83. Moreover, nothing in the record indicates that Sanchez had taken the opportunity to calm down after his prior acts of aggression towards Jessica and Chambers. Sanchez's challenge effectively amounts to a request for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Griffith, 59 N.E.3d at 958.
[¶14] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Crone, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.