Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 1 of 14

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

Donald J. Frew

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Emmett L. Waltz, III,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 17, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A03-1702-CR-263

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Wendy W. Davis, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

02D05-1609-F6-1061

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 2 of 14

Statement of the Case

[1] Emmett Waltz, III (“Waltz”) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for 

Level 6 felony Strangulation.1 At Waltz’s jury trial, the victim—his girlfriend—

recanted her original report to police that Waltz had hit her multiple times and 

had shoved his two fingers, up to his knuckles, into her mouth and down her 

throat. Waltz argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a 

detective’s testimony regarding the cycles of domestic violence and the 

percentage of victims who recant in domestic abuse cases. Specifically, he 

contends on appeal that these two portions of the detective’s testimony were 

inadmissible under Indiana Evidence Rule 702. Waltz also contends that there 

was insufficient evidence to support his strangulation conviction. 

[2] We conclude that Waltz has waived his appellate challenge to the detective’s 

testimony. Specifically, he waived his challenge to the detective’s testimony 

regarding the cycles of violence because he failed to object based on the same 

grounds he now raises on appeal, and he waived his challenge to the testimony 

regarding the percentage of recanting victims because he failed to object to that 

testimony at trial. Additionally, we conclude that Waltz’s sufficiency argument 

is merely a request to reweigh the inferences made by the jury and its 

 

1

IND. CODE § 35-42-2-9, the strangulation statute, was recently amended effective July 1, 2017. Because 

Waltz committed his offense in 2016, we will apply the statute in effect at that time. Waltz was also 

convicted of Level 6 felony domestic battery under INDIANA CODE § 35-42-2-1.3 but does not appeal that 

conviction. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 3 of 14

determination of witness credibility, and we deny this request and affirm his 

challenged strangulation conviction. 

[3] We affirm. 

Issues

1. Whether Waltz waived his appellate challenge to the admission of the 

police detective’s testimony. 

2. Whether sufficient evidence supports Waltz’s Level 6 felony 

strangulation conviction. 

Facts

[4] In September 2016, Waltz and Melanie Bell (“Bell”) had been in a relationship 

for two years and had a child together. Following an argument via text 

message, Bell took her daughter to Waltz’s house so that Bell could speak with 

him. Bell sat her five-month-old daughter in the living room and went into the 

bathroom where Waltz was in the bathtub. The two argued, and Bell threw a 

comb or a toothbrush at him. Waltz told Bell that she “better be scared[,]” (Tr. 

Vol. 2 at 178), and he “grabbed her wrist and pushed it towards the side[.]” (Tr. 

Vol. 3 at 23). Bell then ran out of the bathroom to leave the house. Waltz 

caught up with Bell at the front door and again grabbed her wrist. Waltz then 

shoved his two fingers, up to his knuckles, into her mouth and down her throat. 

He also hit her in the ribs, on her arm, and on her head. Bell broke away and 

retreated to her car in the driveway, leaving her daughter inside the house. 

[5] Waltz went to Bell’s car to ask her to come back inside. Bell told Waltz to 

bring their daughter outside to her, and Waltz refused. Bell then called 911 and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 4 of 14

told the operator that Waltz “was inside with [her] daughter and that he 

wouldn’t bring her outside.” (State’s Ex. 1). Bell also “told them that there was 

some violence that had happened[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 151). She told the 911 

operator that she did not want to stay in the driveway because she was scared 

and that she was going to drive down the street and away from Waltz’s house. 

A few minutes later, Bell again called 911 in an attempt to cancel her previous 

call, and the operator informed her that the police were on the way. Minutes 

later, the police responded and met Bell on a cross street near Waltz’s home. 

[6] When the police arrived, Fort Wayne Police Officer Scott Wilson (“Officer 

Wilson”) noticed that Bell appeared “afraid” and “ha[d] been crying.” (Tr. 

Vol. 2 at 176). Bell told Officer Wilson that, after Waltz had gotten 

“aggravated with her[,]” he “grabbed her[,]” “shoved his fingers down into her 

throat or into her mouth[,]” and asked her “how d[id] she like that or how did 

that feel.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 179). Bell also told the officer that Waltz had hit her 

ribs and head. Officer Wilson saw that Bell had a “red mark” on her arm and 

“some skin fluffing from the arm like an abrasion.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 180). 

[7] The police told Bell to follow them back to Waltz’s house so she could get her 

daughter. Bell was “apprehensive” and “said she was too scared to go back[.]” 

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 180). After Officer Wilson assured Bell that Waltz was “not 

going to do anything with [the police] there[,]” Bell went back to Waltz’s house 

with the police. The police officers knocked several times on Waltz’s door, but 

he refused to answer. The officers, who noticed that Bell was texting Waltz, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 5 of 14

told her to tell him to come outside. Waltz then opened the door and came 

outside with Bell’s daughter, and the police arrested Waltz. 

[8] Thereafter, Bell drove to the police station to give a statement to Detective 

Michelle Brown (“Detective Brown”), who is a detective in the domestic 

violence unit. Bell told Detective Brown that Waltz had “shoved his first two 

fingers down her throat . . . all the way down to . . . the knuckle” and that he 

had “struck her on her left side in [her] ribs . . . and punched her with a closed 

fist on the left side of her head.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 228). While Bell was at the 

police station, another officer took photographs of her side and arm.

[9] The State charged Waltz with Count I, Level 6 felony strangulation; Count II, 

Level 6 felony domestic battery based on prior conviction for battery; and 

Count III, Level 6 felony domestic battery committed in the presence of a child. 

The trial court also issued a no-contact order between Waltz and Bell. 

[10] Despite the no-contact order, Waltz called Bell multiple times while he was in 

jail, and all of these calls were recorded. On the day of his arrest, Waltz called 

Bell for the first time. During this phone call, Waltz cautioned Bell to stop 

making statements. He also told Bell, “when you go to court, tell them that you 

made it up,” and he emphasized that he was “dead fucking serious” about it. 

(State’s Ex. 9). Waltz also asked Bell why she had called the police, and she 

responded that she had been “scared.” (State’s Ex. 9). He then warned her that 

if “[she] d[id] this, then [she was] gonna regret it . . . regret it every time.” 

(State’s Ex. 9). Later during the phone call, Waltz questioned Bell about why 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 6 of 14

she had told the police that he had strangled her, and she responded that she 

had told the police that he had put his hands down her throat. Waltz told Bell 

that she was not helping him by saying that “stupid shit” and that she needed to 

“quit thinking honestly.” (State’s Ex. 9). 

[11] Two days later, Bell wrote a letter to the trial court. In the letter, Bell stated 

that she “want[ed] to recant [her] statement” made to police on September 16. 

(App. Vol. 2 at 25). She also stated that she did not want the police to arrest 

Waltz and that she did not want to press any charges against him. In the letter, 

Bell stated that she had a mark on her arm because it had been sunburnt and 

was peeling. Additionally, she wrote that she “c[ould] assure that there had 

been no domestic violence[,]” that she did not fear Waltz, and that “no one 

ha[d] pressured [her] into the writing of this letter.” (App. Vol. 2 at 26). On the 

day that Bell wrote the letter, Waltz phoned Bell from the jail. After Bell read 

part of the letter to Waltz, he told her that she needed to make it sound like the 

police had “coached [her] and like changed [her] words” and “manipulated 

charges that weren’t fuckin’ true.” (State’s Ex. 13). Waltz instructed Bell to 

make a copy of the letter for both the trial court and the prosecutor’s office. 

Bell told Waltz that “they had nothing to build a case off of without [her] 

statement.” (State’s Ex. 9). Waltz said that the strangulation charge should get 

dropped because there were no photos of Bell’s throat.

[12] On October 19, 2016, Waltz again called Bell from jail. During the phone call, 

Waltz told Bell how to avoid being served with a subpoena, such as refusing to 

answer the door or moving from her house and staying with her grandmother 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 7 of 14

for a month or two. Waltz told Bell that her “showing up is going to fuck 

everything up.” (State’s Ex. 14). 

[13] In December 2016, the trial court held a jury trial. When the State called Bell 

as a witness, she admitted that she had told the police that Waltz had hit her 

multiple times and had shoved his fingers down her throat. She, however, 

recanted those prior reports to police and testified that “in all actuality it didn’t 

happen.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 155). Instead, Bell testified that she had marks on her 

because she had run into the refrigerator when leaving Waltz’s house and was 

sunburnt. She also admitted that she had written the trial court a letter in which 

she had stated that she did not want Bell to be arrested and did not want 

charges filed against him, and she testified that she had written the letter all by 

herself. After Bell testified that she was never scared of Waltz and continued to 

deny that he had shoved his fingers down her throat, the State asked her “[h]ow 

would someone having their fingers down your throat impact you?” (Tr. Vol. 2 

at 159-60). Bell responded that “[i]t could affect your breathing or make you 

sick or something[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 160). The State then verified that Bell had 

testified that “someone having their fingers down your throat . . . can impact 

your breathing[,]” and Bell responded, “Yes.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 160). 

[14] The State introduced into evidence Bell’s 911 phone calls and the jail phone 

calls between Waltz and Bell. The State also presented testimony from Officer 

Wilson and Detective Brown regarding Bell’s initial statements that Waltz had 

hit her and shoved his fingers down her throat. During Detective Brown’s 

direct examination, she testified that she had experience and training in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 8 of 14

domestic violence cases and was familiar with how some domestic violence 

victims behave, including recanting prior statements. She then, without 

objection, explained the definition of recanting. Specifically, Detective Brown 

testified that “[r]ecanting is when a victim will formally take back what they 

[sic] had initially reported and said.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 223). When the State asked 

the detective to talk about the cycles of violence, Waltz objected to the 

testimony based on relevancy. The trial court overruled the objection, and 

Detective Brown then testified about the three cycles of violence. The State 

then asked Detective Brown about the percentage of victims who had recanted 

in her cases, and the detective testified—without objection—that “about 80 to 

90 percent will go back and say it never happened.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 225). 

[15] Waltz testified at trial on his own behalf. He admitted that he had argued with 

Bell and that he had grabbed Bell’s wrist in the bathroom and in the living room 

as she was running out of the house. He, however, denied that he had hit her. 

During closing argument, his counsel argued that Waltz had grabbed Bell’s 

wrist out of self-defense, and the trial court granted his request to include a selfdefense instruction. 

[16] The jury returned a verdict of guilty on Count I, Level 6 felony strangulation 

and Count II, Level 6 felony domestic battery, and it found Waltz not guilty of 

Count III, Level 6 felony domestic battery. The trial court sentenced Waltz to 

two (2) years’ imprisonment for both Count I and Count II and ordered that 

these sentences be served concurrently. Waltz now appeals. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 9 of 14

Decision

[17] Waltz argues that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting 

Detective Brown’s testimony, and (2) there was not sufficient evidence to 

support his Level 6 felony strangulation conviction. We will address each of 

these arguments in turn. 

1. Admission of Evidence

[18] Waltz argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Detective 

Brown’s testimony regarding the cycles of violence and the percentage of 

victims who recant. He contends that these two portions of testimony were 

inadmissible under Indiana Evidence Rule 702(a). 

[19] The admission and exclusion of evidence falls within the sound discretion of 

the trial court, and we review the admission of evidence only for an abuse of 

discretion. Wilson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1265, 1272 (Ind. 2002). An abuse of 

discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and

effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 

871 (Ind. 2012), reh’g denied. 

[20] “A claim of evidentiary error may not be raised for the first time on appeal but 

rather must first be presented at trial[.]” Hunter v. State, 72 N.E.3d 928, 932 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. “The failure to make a contemporaneous 

objection to the admission of evidence at trial, so as to provide the trial court an 

opportunity to make a final ruling on the matter in the context in which the 

evidence is introduced, results in waiver of the error on appeal.” Brown v. State, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 10 of 14

783 N.E.2d 1121, 1125 (Ind. 2003). Additionally, “[a]ny grounds for objections 

not raised at trial are not available on appeal, and a party may not add to or

change his grounds in the reviewing court.” Hunter, 72 N.E.3d at 932. 

[21] Here, Waltz has waived his appellate challenge to the two portions of Detective 

Brown’s testimony. First, Waltz has waived his challenge to the detective’s 

testimony regarding the cycles of violence because his objection was based only 

on the relevance of this testimony and not based on Indiana Evidence Rule 702, 

which he now attempts to raise on appeal. Because he objected based on a 

ground other than he now attempts to raise on appeal, he has waived review of 

his appellate argument regarding this testimony. See, e.g., Brown, 783 N.E.2d at 

1125-26 (holding that the defendant had waived his argument regarding the 

admission of evidence where his objection at trial was based on grounds 

different than those on appeal). Second, in regard to Waltz’s challenge to the 

detective’s testimony about the percentage of victims who recant, Waltz failed 

to raise an objection, let alone a contemporaneous objection, to this testimony. 

As a result, he has waived his appellate argument regarding this testimony. See, 

e.g., Moore v. State, 669 N.E.2d 733, 742 (Ind. 1996) (explaining that a defendant 

waives a claim on appeal when he does not object to the introduction of 

evidence, makes only a general objection, or objects only on other grounds), 

reh’g denied.

2

 

2 We recognize that “[a] claim that has been waived by a defendant’s failure to raise a contemporaneous 

objection can be reviewed on appeal if the reviewing court determines that a fundamental error occurred.” 

Brown, 929 N.E.2d at 207. See also Konopasek v. State, 946 N.E.2d 23, 27 (Ind. 2011) (“Failure to object to the 

admission of evidence at trial normally results in waiver and precludes appellate review unless its admission 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 11 of 14

2. Insufficient Evidence

[22] Waltz also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction 

for Level 6 felony strangulation. 

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 would 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) (internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 

[23] The strangulation statute in effect at the time of Waltz’s crime, INDIANA CODE

§ 35-42-2-9, provided, in relevant part, that “[a] person who, in a rude, angry, or 

insolent manner, knowingly or intentionally . . . obstructs the nose or mouth of 

. . . another person . . . in a manner that impedes the normal breathing or the 

blood circulation of the other person commits strangulation, a Level 6 felony.” 

 

constitutes fundamental error.”). Here, however, Waltz does not raise a fundamental error claim on appeal. 

Therefore, we will not address it. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 12 of 14

I.C. § 35-42-2-9(b)(2). To convict Waltz as charged, the State was required to 

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Waltz knowingly or intentionally 

obstructed Bell’s nose or mouth in a manner that impeded her normal breathing 

or blood circulation. 

[24] Waltz contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his strangulation 

conviction because the State did not provide direct testimony that Bell’s normal 

breathing was impeded. In support, he points to Bell’s testimony at trial that 

she had lied to the officers about Waltz putting his fingers down her throat and 

then claimed that her breathing was, therefore, not affected. The State, on the 

other hand, argues that the probative evidence presented and the reasonable 

inferences drawn therefrom were sufficient to allow the jury to find that Bell’s 

breathing was impeded. We agree. 

[25] “Triers-of-fact are charged with making common sense inferences” regarding 

evidence presented. Davis v. State, 796 N.E.2d 798, 806 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), 

trans. denied. Indeed, we will determine that “evidence is sufficient if an 

inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.” Drane, 867 

N.E.2d at 147. 

[26] Here, despite Bell’s recantation, the jury heard testimony from police officers 

that Waltz had shoved his two fingers, up to his knuckles, into Bell’s mouth and 

down her throat. Specifically, Bell told Officer Wilson that, after Waltz had 

gotten “aggravated with her[,]” he “grabbed her[,]” “shoved his fingers down 

into her throat or into her mouth[,]” and asked her “how d[id] she like that or 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 13 of 14

how did that feel.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 179). Bell told Detective Brown that Waltz 

had “shoved his first two fingers down her throat . . . all the way down to . . . 

the knuckle[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 228). From this evidence, the jury could have 

reasonably inferred that Bell’s breathing was impeded. See, e.g., Saxton v. 

State, 790 N.E.2d 98, 99 (Ind. 2003) (explaining that the trier-of-fact could infer 

from evidence that defendant was standing on air conditioning unit at 5 a.m. 

peering into woman’s bathroom window that defendant did so without 

woman’s permission). Indeed, even Bell acknowledged that the impact of 

someone placing his fingers down her throat was that “[i]t could affect your 

breathing or make you sick or something[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 160).

[27] Based on the jury’s verdict, it is evident that it did not believe Bell’s testimony 

that Waltz had never put his fingers down her throat or that her breathing had 

not been affected. “The factfinder is obliged to determine not only whom to 

believe, but also what portions of conflicting testimony to believe, and is not 

required to believe a witness’ testimony even when it is uncontradicted.” Wood 

v. State, 999 N.E.2d 1054, 1064 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (internal citations 

omitted), trans. denied, cert. denied. The evidence presented at trial and the 

inferences drawn therefrom were sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude 

that Waltz impeded Bell’s breathing when he shoved his fingers down her 

throat. Waltz’s challenge to the State’s evidence is merely a request to reweigh 

the inferences made by the jury and its determination of witness credibility. We 

deny this request and affirm his Level 6 felony strangulation conviction. See 

Ferrell v. State, 746 N.E.2d 48, 50 (Ind. 2001) (explaining that “we look to the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 14 of 14

evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support the verdict 

and will affirm the conviction if there is probative evidence from which a

reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable 

doubt”).

[28] Affirmed.

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.