Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2792| July 17, 2019 Page 1 of 13

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Philip R. Skodinski

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Courtney Staton

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael Andrew Chaney,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 17, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2792

Appeal from the 

St. Joseph Superior Court

The Honorable

John M. Marnocha, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

71D02-1802-F1-2

Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2792| July 17, 2019 Page 2 of 13

[1] Michael Andrew Chaney (“Chaney”) appeals his conviction for aggravated 

battery,1 a Level 3 felony, and raises three issues, which we restate as:

I. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut 

Chaney’s claim of self-defense; 

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing 

testimony about Chaney’s prior possession of a knife; and

III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in not 

allowing testimony about why Chaney disliked the victim.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Chaney was acquainted with Isaac Danley (“Isaac”) and Astranah Danley

(“Astranah”), Isaac’s sister, and often gave them rides. Tr. Vol. II at 75-77; 210-

11. On January 23, 2018, Izaiah Davis (“Izaiah”) was house sitting for his 

grandmother at her South Bend home (“the home”). Id. at 112, 141, 212-13. 

Astranah, Izaiah’s girlfriend, was also staying with him. Id. at 212-13. Only 

Izaiah and Astranah were allowed in the home. Id. at 113. At some point on 

that date, Isaac and Chaney drove to the home. Id. at 76-77. While they were 

on their way, Isaac saw Chaney wrap the handle of a “foot-long knife” with 

 

1

See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2792| July 17, 2019 Page 3 of 13

double-sided tape. Id. at 168. During the drive to the home, Chaney asked 

Isaac to help him attack Izaiah. Id. at 190-91. 

[4] When Chaney and Isaac arrived at the home, Chaney exited the car and 

knocked on the front door. Id. at 77. When Astranah answered the door, 

Chaney asked if he could come inside to use the restroom. Id. at 78. Astranah

initially hesitated because she was not supposed to allow anyone inside the 

home, but she eventually agreed to let Chaney in the home. Id. 

[5] A short while later, Izaiah was standing in his bedroom when he saw Chaney 

standing in the doorway. Id. at 114-15. Izaiah told Chaney to leave. Id. at 115-

16. Chaney did not comply with Izaiah’s request; instead, he reached for a 

knife and stabbed Izaiah in the arm. Id. at 116-17. The blade of the knife was 

seven or eight inches long. Id. at 122-23. Izaiah pushed Chaney aside and ran 

from his room toward the kitchen. Id. at 117. Izaiah backed himself between 

the dryer and refrigerator as Chaney approached him. Id. at 83, 118. Chaney 

yelled “you have to die” and stabbed Izaiah again. Id. at 118-20. Izaiah

grabbed Chaney by his shirt and threw him against a window. Id. at 118. 

Izaiah ran from the kitchen, through the living room, and into the carport. Id.

at 120. When Izaiah got to the carport, he fell to the ground, and Chaney stood 

over him while brandishing the knife. Id. Izaiah grabbed Chaney, and once it 

appeared that Izaiah had the upper hand, Izaiah told Chaney that he would let 

him go if Chaney agreed to let Izaiah live. Id. Chaney agreed, released Izaiah, 

kicked him in the side, and ran out the door to the car where Isaac was waiting. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2792| July 17, 2019 Page 4 of 13

Id. at 120, 157-58. Izaiah suffered a collapsed lung. Id. at 30. In total, Chaney 

stabbed Izaiah six times. Id. at 122. 

[6] On February 1, 2018, Chaney was arrested. Id. at 199. That same day, he was 

interviewed by South Bend Police Detective Joshua Brooks (“Detective 

Brooks”). Id. at 189. Chaney told Detective Brooks that he “jabbed” at Izaiah

with a pencil in self-defense. Id. at 193. Detective Brooks also reviewed 

Facebook messages between Chaney and Astranah in which Chaney told 

Astranah that he was not afraid of Izaiah. Id. at 187-88. On February 8, 2018, 

the State charged Chaney with Count I, Level 1 felony attempted murder; 

Count II, Level 3 felony aggravated battery; and Count III, Level 5 felony 

battery with a deadly weapon. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 11-12. On February 

23, 2018, Chaney filed a notice of self-defense. Id. at 4.

[7] During the trial, Isaac testified, over Chaney’s objection, that Chaney possessed 

a foot-long knife as he and Chaney drove to the home. Tr. Vol. II at 168. 

Chaney claimed this testimony was not relevant and was prejudicial because it 

was not clear whether the knife that Isaac described was the same knife that 

Chaney used to stab Izaiah. Id. at 164-68. The trial court overruled Chaney’s 

objection, finding that the testimony was relevant because it showed that 

Chaney had access to a knife, and that while the knife that Isaac saw might 

have a “nebulous” connection to the case, Chaney could highlight this tenuous 

connection to the jury through his cross examination of Isaac. Id. at 164-65. 

As to the characteristics of the knife that Chaney used to stab Izaiah, Doctor 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2792| July 17, 2019 Page 5 of 13

Scott Thomas (“Dr. Thomas”) testified that the knife used to cause Izaiah’s 

injuries would have to be “significant.” Id. at 34. 

[8] Chaney sought to elicit testimony from Astranah about why Chaney did not 

like Izaiah. Id. at 94. The State objected on relevance grounds, and the trial 

court sustained the objection. Id. at 95. Later, Chaney again tried to elicit the 

same testimony from Astranah “because [Chaney] heard from [Isaac] that 

Izaiah was mistreating Astranah.” Id. at 104-05. The State objected, and the 

trial court sustained the objection, ruling that the testimony Chaney was trying 

to elicit would be based on speculation and hearsay. Id. at 105. 

[9] Chaney testified that he was afraid of Izaiah because of Izaiah’s reputation for 

violence and because Izaiah was “mean and brutal and big and bad.” Id. at 

227. This “heightened [Chaney’s] fear.” Appellant’s Br. at 6. Chaney was also 

afraid of Izaiah because Izaiah was 6 feet 8 inches tall and weighed 300 pounds 

while Chaney was only 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighed only 185 pounds. Tr. 

Vol. II at 222. Chaney also testified that he is right-handed, but during the 

struggle the knife was in his left hand. Id. at 222-25. He also testified that he 

thought he had stabbed Izaiah with a pencil, not a knife: “I thought I grabbed a 

pencil, you know, and I jabbed at him with it. I knew it was something

cylindrical and I must have picked it up in his bedroom.” Id. at 221.

[10] During closing arguments, Chaney’s attorney argued that Chaney acted in selfdefense. Tr. Vol. III at 50-56. The jury rejected that argument and found 

Chaney guilty of Count II, aggravated battery, and Count III, battery with a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2792| July 17, 2019 Page 6 of 13

deadly weapon, while acquitting him of the attempted murder charge (Count I). 

Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 129. The trial court entered judgment of conviction 

only on Count II, aggravated battery. Id. at 129-30. On October 24, 2018, the 

trial court sentenced Chaney to twelve years executed in the Indiana 

Department of Correction. Id. at 130. Chaney now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Evidence Sufficient to Rebut Claim of Self-Defense

[11] Chaney argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his 

claim of self-defense. We review such a challenge the same way we review any 

claim of insufficient evidence. Ervin v. State, 114 N.E.3d 888, 895 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2018), trans. denied. We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the 

credibility of the witnesses. Id. We consider only the probative evidence and 

reasonable inferences supporting the fact-finder’s decision. Id. We will affirm a 

conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value such that a 

reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Id. 

[12] Indiana’s self-defense statute provides: 

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any 

other person to protect the person or a third person from what 

the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of 

unlawful force.

Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-3-2(c).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2792| July 17, 2019 Page 7 of 13

To prevail on such claims, a defendant must show he: (1) was in 

a place where he had a right to be; (2) did not provoke, instigate, 

or participate willingly in the violence; and (3) had a reasonable 

fear of death or great bodily harm. When a claim of self-defense 

is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State bears the 

burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements.

Ervin, 114 N.E.3d at 896 (internal citations omitted). An initial aggressor must 

withdraw from the encounter and communicate the intent to do so to the other 

person before he may claim self-defense. Kimbrough v. State, 911 N.E.2d 621, 

635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

[13] Here, Chaney claims that the State failed to rebut his claim of self-defense. In a 

convoluted argument, Chaney appears to contend that he did not provoke the 

incident because he grabbed the knife with his left hand. Noting that he is righthanded, Chaney appears to claim that grabbing the knife with his left hand 

shows that he did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the incident. 

Second, he appears to claim that because he suffered some injuries during the 

incident, he was not at fault. 

[14] Chaney’s argument is unavailing because it impermissibly asks us to reweigh 

the evidence. See Ervin, 114 N.E.2d at 895. The evidence most favorable to the 

judgment shows that Chaney provoked the incident and, therefore, was not 

without fault. Chaney enlisted the aid of Isaac, asking Isaac to help him attack 

Izaiah. Tr. Vol. II at 190-91. Chaney escalated the situation when he entered 

Izaiah’s room unannounced and uninvited. Id. at 114-15. Despite being told to 

leave, Chaney pulled out a knife. Id. at 117. Chaney did not withdraw from 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2792| July 17, 2019 Page 8 of 13

the incident but instead worsened the situation by stabbing Izaiah in the arm 

and then chasing Izaiah throughout the home, stabbing him six times overall. 

Id. at 117-22; see Kimbrough, 911 N.E.2d at 635. Thus, in establishing that 

Chaney provoked the incident, the State negated at least one element of 

Chaney’s self-defense claim, so Chaney’s claim that the State failed to rebut his 

self-defense claim must fail.2 See Ervin, 114 N.E.3d at 896. 

II. Testimony About Chaney’s Access to Knife

[15] Chaney argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed Isaac to 

testify that when he and Chaney were driving to the home, Isaac saw Chaney 

wrap the handle of a “foot-long knife” with double-sided tape. Tr. Vol. II at 

168. Chaney claims this testimony was irrelevant because it did not establish 

that this was the same knife Chaney used to stab Izaiah. Chaney argues in the 

alternative that even if Isaac’s testimony was relevant, its prejudicial impact 

outweighed its probative value. 

 

2 The State also negated the other two elements of Chaney’s claim of self-defense. First, Chaney was not in a 

place he had the right to be. See Ervin v. State, 114 N.E.3d 888, 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. Only 

Izaiah and Astranah were allowed in the home. Tr. Vol. II at 113. Astranah let Chaney inside but only to use 

the restroom. Id. at 77-78. Once he finished using the restroom, Chaney did not leave. Id. at 80. Once 

Izaiah realized that Chaney was inside the home, Izaiah told him to leave, but Chaney refused. Id. at 115. 

Second, Chaney did not have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. See Ervin, 114 N.E.3d at 896. 

While Izaiah was larger in stature and size than Chaney, he was not wielding a weapon during the incident 

as was Chaney. Tr. Vol. II at 121, 135. Izaiah tried to evade Chaney by running from his bedroom to the 

kitchen as Chaney was yelling, “you have to die.” Id. at 82, 113, 117, 118, 120. Chaney’s purported fear of 

Izaiah was not reasonable. See Ervin, 114 N.E.3d at 896. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2792| July 17, 2019 Page 9 of 13

[16] We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Williams v. State, 43 

N.E.3d 578, 581 (Ind. 2015). A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling 

is either clearly against the logic and effect of the facts before it, or when it 

misinterprets the law. Id. To determine if an evidentiary ruling prejudices a 

defendant, “we assess the probable impact the evidence had upon the jury in 

light of all of the other evidence that was properly presented.” Blount v. State, 22 

N.E.3d 559, 564 (Ind. 2014).

[17] “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less 

probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of 

consequence in determining the action.” Ind. Evidence Rule 401. “A trial 

court’s discretion is wide on issues of relevance and unfair prejudice. Snow v. 

State, 77 N.E.3d 173, 176 (Ind. 2017). “In order to be relevant, the evidence at 

issue need only have some tendency, however slight, to make the existence of a 

material fact more or less probable or tend to shed any light upon the guilt or 

innocence of the accused.” Hinkle v. State, 97 N.E.3d 654, 663 (Ind. Ct. App.

2018) (quoting Smith v. State, 982 N.E.2d 393, 402 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. 

denied.), trans. denied. This standard for relevancy sets a low bar. Snow, 77 

N.E.3d at 177. 

[18] Isaac’s testimony about the knife that Chaney possessed before stabbing Izaiah 

was relevant because it tended to prove that Chaney had access to a knife before 

he stabbed Izaiah. Even if the knife Chaney used to stab Izaiah was different 

than the knife that Isaac observed, Isaac’s testimony tended to prove that the 

knives were of the same type. “Evidence that a defendant had access to a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2792| July 17, 2019 Page 10 of 13

weapon of the type used in a crime is relevant to a matter at issue . . . .” Pickens 

v. State, 764 N.E.2d 295, 299 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. Isaac testified 

that the knife he observed was about twelve inches long. Tr. Vol. II at 168. The 

testimony of both Izaiah and Dr. Thomas established that the knife Isaac 

observed was of the same type as the knife Chaney used to stab Izaiah. Izaiah 

testified that Chaney wielded a knife with a blade seven or eight inches long, 

and Dr. Thomas testified that the knife that caused Izaiah’s injuries would have 

to be “significant.” Id. at 34; 122-23. Thus, Isaac’s testimony had some 

tendency to make it probable that Chaney had access to a knife that was of the 

same type that he used to stab Izaiah. See Hinkle, 97 N.E.3d at 663. Chaney 

had the opportunity to challenge the weight the jury should afford this 

testimony, and he broached this issue during his cross-examination of Detective 

Brooks. Tr. Vol. II at 203. See Mateo v. State, 981 N.E.2d 59, 67 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2012 (“In sum, whether the knives were the same ones that were used in the 

stabbings . . . was a question of the fact for the jury ultimately bearing upon the 

weight that was to be assigned to the knives that the police collected and not 

upon whether they were admissible.”), trans. denied.

[19] Additionally, the probative value of Isaac’s testimony outweighed its potential 

prejudicial impact. Under Indiana Rule of Evidence 403, “relevant evidence 

may be excluded ‘if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the 

danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue 

delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.’” Snow, 77 N.E.3d at 177 

(quoting Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co., 73 N.E.3d 663, 668 (Ind. 2017)). This 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2792| July 17, 2019 Page 11 of 13

balancing is committed to the trial court’s discretion. Dunlap v. State, 761 

N.E.2d 837, 842 (Ind. 2002). Here, Isaac’s testimony that Chaney had access 

to the type of knife that he used to stab Izaiah also established that the probative 

value of Isaac’s testimony outweighed its potential prejudicial impact. See 

Thompson v. State, 728 N.E.2d 155, 160 (Ind. 2000) (the possibility of prejudice 

“is clearly outweighed by the probative value of testimony that Thompson had 

access to a weapon of the type used in the murder”). 

[20] In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Isaac’s testimony 

about Chaney’s knife. Isaac’s testimony was relevant, and its probative value 

outweighed its potential prejudicial impact. 

III. Testimony About Why Chaney Disliked Izaiah

[21] Finally, Chaney alleges the trial court abused its discretion in not letting 

Astranah testify about why Chaney disliked Izaiah. On direct examination, the 

State asked Astranah, “Were you made aware that [Chaney] did not like your 

boyfriend, [Izaiah]?” Tr. Vol. II at 74. Astranah said she was aware of this. Id.

On cross examination, Chaney’s attorney asked Astranah why Chaney did not 

like Izaiah. Id. at 94. The State objected on grounds of relevance, and the trial 

court sustained the objection. Id. at 95. Later, Chaney again broached this 

topic, asking Astranah whether Chaney disliked Izaiah because Isaac had told 

Chaney that Izaiah was mistreating Astranah. Id. at 104-05. Chaney argued 

that the State opened the door to this testimony, but the trial court ruled the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2792| July 17, 2019 Page 12 of 13

testimony was inadmissible because Chaney was asking Astranah to speculate 

about Chaney’s thoughts and also attempting to elicit hearsay. Id. at 104-05.

[22] We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Williams, 43 N.E.3d 

at 581. A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is either clearly against 

the logic and effect of the facts before it, or when it misinterprets the law. Id.

Here, when Chaney asked Astranah to testify about what Isaac told him, 

Chaney was trying to introduce hearsay. “Hearsay is inadmissible unless these 

rules or other law provides otherwise.” Ind. Evidence Rule 802. Chaney cites 

no exception to the hearsay rule that would allow admission of such testimony. 

Also, when asking Astranah why Chaney disliked Izaiah, Chaney asked 

Astranah to speculate on Chaney’s state of mind. Chaney presented no 

evidence that Astranah had personal knowledge about Chaney’s reasons for 

disliking Izaiah, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing 

Astranah to testify about Chaney’s state of mind. See Ind. Evidence Rule 602 

(“A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to 

support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.”). 

Finally, the testimony Chaney sought from Astranah was irrelevant as it was of 

no consequence to the matters at issue at trial. See Ind. Evidence Rule 401. 

The reason Chaney disliked Izaiah had no bearing on Chaney’s claim of selfdefense or any other justification for Chaney’s behavior. The trial court did not 

abuse its discretion by preventing Astranah from testifying about the 

relationship between Chaney and Izaiah. 

[23] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2792| July 17, 2019 Page 13 of 13

Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.