Court Opinion

ID: 9709471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:48:34.131328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:49.196823
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
The jury returned verdicts of guilty of the battery Counts 11, 12, and 19, “as charged in the information, a class C felony.” As stated to the jury in the preliminary instructions, Counts 11 and 12 charged that appellant Kuchel did “knowingly touch [P.M.] in a rude insolent and angry manner ... while armed with a deadly weapon ... contrary to ... Ind.Code 35-42-2-1_” Count 19, likewise provided to the jury, charged the touching of R.F. in precisely the same language. The state of being armed with a deadly weapon while engaged in an unlawful touching is not the element which raises a battery to the Class C level. That element is instead the accomplishment of an unlawful touching “by means of a deadly weapon.” Matthews v. State (1985), Ind., 476 N.E.2d 847. These three counts did not charge Class C batteries. I would therefore order the convictions on these three counts reduced to Class B misdemeanors with appropriate sentences. I note that the battery statute, including the phrase, “by means of a deadly weapon,” was read to the jury as part of the final jury instructions. The jury therefore had instructions before it which were at odds with one another with respect to an indispensable statutory element. The existence of such final instructions does not correct the error and does not alter my judgment.
If I were to accept the jury instructions as accurate, I would nevertheless arrive at the same result, as the evidence that the batteries were accomplished “by means of a deadly weapon” is woefully lacking. The evidence shows no more than that appellant was armed at the time, that the victims were aware that he was armed at the time, and that the victims were afraid he might use it against them. Such evidence is insufficient. The weapon must be actively employed in the illegal touching. Litel v. State (1988), Ind., 527 N.E.2d 1114.
With respect to the remainder of the case, I concur.
DICKSON, J., concurs.