Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-49A02-1509-CR-1421 | March 15, 2016 Page 1 of 4

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

Michael R. Fisher

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE INDIANA 

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joseph Matters,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 15, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1509-CR-1421

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Christina Klineman, 

Judge 

Trial Court Cause No. 49G17-1507-

CM-26748

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-49A02-1509-CR-1421 | March 15, 2016 Page 2 of 4

[1] Appellant-Defendant Jospeh Matters became angry with Colleen Bonner soon 

after the two had ended their romantic relationship. Matters became upset that 

Bonner was going to visit a mutual friend and followed her there. Once there, 

Matters confronted Bonner, opened her vehicle door, and struck her on the left 

side of the face. Matters was aware that Bonner had stitches in her mouth from 

a recent surgery, and his blow caused pain, bleeding, and the stiches to tear 

open. The trial court found Matters guilty of Class A misdemeanor battery. 

Matters contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to sustain his 

conviction. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Matters and Bonner had dated and lived together for two and one-half years 

before breaking up in July of 2015. On July 19, 2015, Bonner drove to the 

Indianapolis apartment of mutual friend Brandon Bailey. Matters became 

upset when he heard of Bonner’s visit and followed her there, both arriving 

around 10:45 p.m. Matters “whipped his car up next to” Bonner’s and started 

screaming and yelling, banging on the glass, and calling her names through the 

window. Tr. p. 8. When Bonner put the car into park, the doors unlocked, 

allowing Matters to open the driver’s door and strike Bonner on the left side of 

her face. Bonner had recently had surgery to remove wisdom teeth, and 

Matters was aware that she had stiches in her mouth. Matters’s strike caused 

Bonner pain and bleeding and tore open a few stiches. On July 29, 2015, the 

State charged Matters with Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, Class A 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-49A02-1509-CR-1421 | March 15, 2016 Page 3 of 4

misdemeanor battery, and Class A misdemeanor interference with the reporting 

of a crime. On August 26, 2015, the trial court found Matters guilty of Class A 

misdemeanor battery and sentenced him to 180 days of incarceration, with all 

but time served suspended to probation. 

Discussion and Decision

[3] Matters contends that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain 

his conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither 

weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility. Jordan v. State, 656 

N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995). We look only to the evidence of probative value 

and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom which support the verdict. 

Id. If from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative value from which a 

reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt, we will affirm the conviction. Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 

720, 724 (Ind. 1993). Pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-42-1-1(b), “a person 

who knowingly or intentionally ... touches another person in a rude, insolent, 

or angry manner ... commits battery ... a Class A misdemeanor if it results in 

bodily injury to any other person.” Pursuant to what is now Indiana Code 

section 35-31.5-2-29, “‘Bodily injury’ means any impairment of physical 

condition, including physical pain.” 

[4] Matters argues only that the State failed to establish that he touched Bonner in 

a rude, insolent, or angry manner or that he did so knowingly. The evidence, 

however, indicates that Matters followed Bonner and, when he found her,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-49A02-1509-CR-1421 | March 15, 2016 Page 4 of 4

began banging on her window, yelling and screaming at her, and calling her 

names. As soon as Matters was able, he reached into Bonner’s vehicle and 

struck her in the face. The clear evidence of Matters’s anger toward Bonner, 

along with the undisputed evidence of the blow and bodily injury it caused, is 

sufficient to sustain a finding that he knowingly touched her in a rude, insolent, 

or angry manner. Matters’s argument is nothing more than an invitation to 

reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Jordan, 656 N.E.2d at 817. 

[5] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Baker, J., and Pyle, concur.