Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1407-CR-336 | May 19, 2015 Page 1 of 7

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

Sean P. Hilgendorf

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Karl M. Scharnberg

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Thomas J. Mure,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 19, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

71A05-1407-CR-336

Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior 

Court

Cause No. 71D03-1211-FC-281

The Honorable Jerome Frese, Judge

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1407-CR-336 | May 19, 2015 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] Thomas Mure appeals his conviction for battery, a Class C felony. We affirm.

Issue

[2] The issue before us is whether there is sufficient evidence to support Mure’s 

conviction. 

Facts

[3] The evidence most favorable to the conviction is that Mure was living across 

the street from Joseph Walasinski in South Bend when his house caught fire

and became uninhabitable. Walasinski, with whom Mure was somewhat 

acquainted, told Mure that Mure could stay with him. Walasinski explained 

that he would not charge Mure rent for the first month. Mure moved into 

Walasinski’s house in early November 2012. 

[4] On November 19, 2012, Mure and Walasinski argued about the payment of 

rent and, early the following morning, Walasinski called the police, 

complaining of an unwanted person in his home. The next day, Officer Keith 

Vergon of the South Bend Police Department was dispatched to the call at 

around 6:30 a.m. Officer Vergon instructed Mure to leave the residence. Mure 

was “visibly upset,” but he complied. Tr. p. 69. When Officer Vergon and 

Mure got outside, Mure discovered that the windows to his Cadillac were 

smashed out. Mure, believing Walasinski had smashed out the windows, 

punched Walasinski in the face in Officer Vergon’s presence. Officer Vergon 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1407-CR-336 | May 19, 2015 Page 3 of 7

intervened, separated Mure and Walasinski, and allowed Mure to collect the 

remainder of his belongings and leave in the Cadillac.

[5] A short time later, Mure returned to Walasinski’s house. Walasinski was on 

the porch and, when Mure approached, retreated into the front doorway and 

attempted to shut the door. Mure testified that he shoved the door in 

Walasinski’s face—propelling Walasinski backward and shattering the door’s 

glass inlay—and then hit Walasinski once. Mure claims that after Walasinski 

“went down,” Mure retrieved the keys to his motorcycle and drove away. Id. at 

170.

[6] At around 11:40 a.m., Officer Vergon was again dispatched to Walasinski’s 

residence. Another officer and medical responders were already at Walasinski’s 

house, and Walasinski was being wheeled out on a gurney. Walasinski was 

unconscious, his eyes were swollen shut, and he had bruises and cuts on his 

face. Walasinski sustained two rib fractures, a pulmonary contusion, and 

subdural hematomas, caused by hemorrhaging. Officer Vergon entered the 

house and found it had been ransacked, with furniture in disarray. On an 

overturned refrigerator were splotches of what appeared to be blood. While 

gathering information for the report, Officer Vergon was advised over the radio 

that Mure was at Murphy’s bar in South Bend.

[7] Officer Vergon went to Murphy’s and noticed Mure’s Cadillac in the parking 

lot. Officer Vergon went inside the bar, at which point Mure, seated at the 

counter, “got up abruptly” and headed for the exit. Id. at 85. Officer Vergon 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1407-CR-336 | May 19, 2015 Page 4 of 7

detained Mure in the parking lot. Mure had cuts on his face, knuckles, and 

palms and had spots of blood on his sweatshirt and jeans. Blood was also 

visible on the Cadillac’s steering wheel and fender. Mure was transported to 

the police station and arrested.

[8] Because Walasinski was intoxicated, he could not recall what happened during 

the assault or the identity of the assailant. A Murphy’s bartender testified that 

she asked Mure about the smashed-out windows and blood on his Cadillac, to 

which he explained “that it was his roommate’s blood and that he had got him 

back for smashing his windows out.” Id. at 18. Another Murphy’s bartender 

testified that she heard Mure tell other bar patrons that he had beaten up his 

roommate for smashing out the windows of his car.

[9] DNA analysis was conducted on blood samples obtained from Mure’s 

sweatshirt, Walasinski’s refrigerator, the steering wheel of Mure’s Cadillac, and 

the fender of Mure’s Cadillac. The analyses revealed both Mure’s and 

Walasinski’s blood on Mure’s sweatshirt; Mure’s blood on the refrigerator and 

the steering wheel; and Walasinski’s blood on the fender.

[10] At a bench trial, Mure’s counsel argued that after Mure’s retrieval of his 

motorcycle and before the second police dispatch, someone other than Mure 

had entered Walasinski’s house and battered Walasinski. The trial court 

rejected this theory, and Mure was convicted of battery as a Class C felony. 

Mure now appeals.

Analysis
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1407-CR-336 | May 19, 2015 Page 5 of 7

[11] Mure argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. When 

reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the 

evidence nor assess the credibility of the witness. Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 

133, 135 (Ind. 2012). We review all evidence—even if conflicting—and 

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the 

conviction. Id. We affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value 

supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact 

could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[12] To convict Mure of battery as a Class C felony, the State was required to prove 

that he knowingly or intentionally touched Walasinski in a “rude, insolent, or 

angry manner . . . result[ing] in serious bodily injury.” Ind. Code § 35-42-2-

1(a)(3).

[13] There is substantial evidence to conclude that Mure returned to Walasinski’s 

home and battered him, causing Walasinski to suffer serious bodily injury. 

Mure contends that because his conviction was “based solely upon suspicion, 

opportunity, probability, conjecture or unreasonable inferences of guilt gleaned 

from vague evidence,” the trial court ruling cannot be sustained. Appellant’s 

Br. p. 5 (quoting Durham v. State, 238 N.E.2d 9, 13 (1968)). The compelling 

evidence of Mure’s guilt negates that his conviction was based on mere 

suspicion or conjecture. Even wholly circumstantial evidence is sufficient “if 

inferences may reasonably be drawn that enable the trier of fact to find the 

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 821, 

826 (Ind. 2002). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1407-CR-336 | May 19, 2015 Page 6 of 7

[14] Although Walasinski was unable to verify that Mure was the assailant, this lack 

of direct evidence does not undermine the judgment of the trial court. See, e.g., 

Campbell v. State, 266 N.E.2d 797, 799 (Ind. 1971); Scott v. State, 234 N.E.2d 

474, 477 (Ind. 1968) (“It is not essential, in order to sustain the conviction of 

appellant, that he should have been identified at the trial, by positive or direct 

evidence, as the guilty person.”) (internal citation omitted). The evidence shows 

that Mure and Walasinski argued the night before the incident and that Mure

subsequently punched Walasinski in Officer Vergon’s presence. Mure also 

admitted to pushing the door in on Walasinski and punching him again when 

Mure returned to retrieve his motorcycle. DNA evidence reveals that Mure’s

blood was on the overturned refrigerator and that Walasinski’s blood was found 

on Mure’s sweatshirt. Mure, furthermore, freely made incriminating statements 

to employees and patrons at Murphy’s bar the day of the incident.

[15] Mure argues that his blood on the overturned refrigerator could be attributed to 

some other incident during his stay at Walasinski’s house. Mure also advances 

the theory that someone else could have entered Walasinski’s house and beat 

him after Mure left on his motorcycle and left the front door ajar. In our review 

for sufficient evidence, however, it is “not necessary that the evidence overcome 

every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 

(Ind. 2007). Suggesting that we now consider the reasonableness of Mure’s

theory essentially asks this court to reassess the credibility of the witness, an 

enterprise barred by the applicable standard of review.

Conclusion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1407-CR-336 | May 19, 2015 Page 7 of 7

[16] There is sufficient evidence to support Mure’s conviction. We affirm.

[17] Affirmed.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.