Matthew S. Wagoner v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 17 2016, 9:23 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael Frischkorn Gregory F. Zoeller
Frischkorn Law LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Fortville, Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Matthew S. Wagoner, October 17, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
30A04-1603-CR-671
v. Appeal from the Hancock Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Terry K. Snow,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
30D01-1506-MR-794
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1603-CR-671 | October 17, 2016 Page 1 of 10
[1] Matthew Wagoner appeals his convictions for Murder1 and Level 6 Felony
Neglect of a Dependent,2 arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the
convictions. Wagoner also contends that the sentence imposed by the trial
court is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.
Finding that the evidence is sufficient and the sentence is not inappropriate, we
affirm.
Facts
[2] In May 2015, Wagoner and Jessica Wagoner were married and had one child
together—one-year-old Z.W. Z.W. was fine during the day and night of May
27, 2015, and around 6:45 a.m. on May 28, Jessica left the house for work and
left the infant in Wagoner’s care.
[3] On the morning of May 28, home care nurse Christina Ferrell stopped at the
Circle K gas station in Greenfield at approximately 8:45 a.m. While there, she
noticed a man, later identified as Wagoner, with a baby girl. Ferrell noticed
that the baby’s breathing appeared labored and worried that the infant needed
medical attention. She mentioned to Wagoner that the baby did not sound
good and asked if he had taken her to the emergency room. He responded
(falsely) that he had just done so. Although the weather was warm that day,
Wagoner kept Z.W. covered up with a blanket. When the infant moved,
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.
2
Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1603-CR-671 | October 17, 2016 Page 2 of 10
however, Ferrell was able to observe redness around the baby’s eyes and red
blotches on her legs. Wagoner walked through the hospital parking lot on his
way home from the Circle K but did not take Z.W. to the emergency room.
[4] Text messages between Wagoner and Jessica reveal that Z.W. vomited three
times that morning, was sleepier than normal, and had “done nothing but
moan” during the morning. State’s Ex. 52. Wagoner told Jessica that they
could not take Z.W. to the doctor because she had three dark lines of bruises on
her face. When he walked to Circle K with Z.W., he texted Jessica that “her
face looks bad in the sun.” Id.[5] Around 9:30 a.m., Jessica called their babysitter, Krista Coffin, asking Coffin to
go to Jessica’s home immediately because Z.W. was not breathing. Jessica was
on her way home from work but Coffin lived closer. When Coffin arrived,
Wagoner met her at the door and told her that Z.W. was not breathing and had
fallen off the bed. Coffin found Z.W. on the bedroom floor, motionless and
blue. Coffin asked Wagoner if he had called 911 and he said, “I can’t.” Tr. p.
357. Wagoner continued to refuse to call 911, so Coffin took his phone and
called 911 herself. Despite repeated attempts to revive Z.W. by Coffin, Jessica,
Wagoner, and medical personnel, Z.W. was pronounced dead at the hospital at
10:00 a.m.
[6] Greenfield law enforcement immediately began an investigation into Z.W.’s
death. Wagoner told them that the infant had fallen off of the bed while he was
changing her diaper. While being transported to the hospital, Wagoner
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1603-CR-671 | October 17, 2016 Page 3 of 10
commented that “he was a piece of shit and he didn’t deserve to live.” Id. at
176. On May 30, Wagoner twice attempted to commit suicide, telling a
responding officer that “he was a piece of shit and that he wanted to die.” Id. at
191.
[7] Z.W.’s autopsy revealed fifty bruises, contusions, abrasions, and scratches on
Z.W.’s body. She also had healing fractures. She had sustained recent severe
blunt force injury to her head, brain, and abdomen, as well as lacerations to her
liver and pancreas and bruises to all of the organs in her abdominal cavity.
Both the head and abdominal injuries were sufficiently severe to have caused
her death; a fall from a bed would not have caused either of those injuries. The
amount of force required to cause the abdominal injuries was similar to that
found in deaths due to traffic accidents or falls from second or third story
windows.
[8] The injuries to Z.W.’s eyes, face, head, and neck appeared fresh and were most
likely inflicted within two to four hours, or as little as thirty minutes, before she
died. Z.W. would have lost consciousness from the head injury prior to her
death. The laceration of her liver would have resulted in death within two to
four hours of the time the injury was sustained. The combination of the head
and abdominal injuries would have led to a more rapid deterioration and a
shorter time before death. In other words, the major injuries to Z.W.’s head
and abdomen would have resulted in her death in, at most, two to four hours.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1603-CR-671 | October 17, 2016 Page 4 of 10
[9] On June 1, 2015, the State charged Wagoner with murder and Level 1 felony
neglect of a dependent. Wagoner’s jury trial took place between January 25
and February 2, 2016, and the jury found Wagoner guilty as charged. The trial
court reduced Wagoner’s Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent conviction to a
Level 6 felony conviction based on double jeopardy concerns. The trial court
sentenced Wagoner to sixty-five years imprisonment for the murder conviction
and to a consecutive term of two and one-half years imprisonment for the
neglect conviction, with two and one-half years suspended to probation.
Wagoner now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[10] First, Wagoner argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his two
convictions. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we will consider
only the evidence and reasonable inferences that support the conviction. Gray
v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). We will affirm if, based on the
evidence and inferences, a reasonable jury could have found the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind.
2009).
A. Murder
[11] To convict Wagoner of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he knowingly killed Z.W. I.C. § 35-42-1-1. A person
engages in conduct knowingly when, at the time he engages in the conduct, he
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1603-CR-671 | October 17, 2016 Page 5 of 10
is aware of a high probability that he is doing so. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b). A
defendant’s murder conviction may be sustained on circumstantial evidence
alone. Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 134 (Ind. 2016). Likewise, a trier of fact
may infer that the requisite intent for a crime exists based solely on
circumstantial evidence: “Knowledge and intent are both mental states and,
absent an admission by the defendant, the trier of fact must resort to the
reasonable inferences from both the direct and circumstantial evidence to
determine whether the defendant has the requisite knowledge or intent to
commit the offense in question.” Stokes v. State, 922 N.E.2d 758, 764 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2010) (holding knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence, and
may be inferred from a defendant’s conduct and the natural and usual sequence
to which such conduct logically and reasonably points).
[12] In this case, the evidence supporting the verdict is as follows:
 Z.W. was in the sole care of Wagoner beginning at approximately 6:45
a.m. on the day of her death.
 Z.W. was pronounced dead at approximately 10:00 a.m.
 The cause of Z.W.’s death was blunt force trauma, stemming from the
severe injuries to her head and/or her abdomen.
 Both of those injuries were recent and were inflicted within a short time
of Z.W.’s death. At most, those injuries were inflicted two to four hours
before her death; at the least, as little as thirty minutes before her death.
Additionally, Wagoner told police that Z.W. sustained the injuries by falling off
of the bed. It is not at all possible that her injuries were sustained in that way.
See Grimes v. State, 450 N.E.2d 512, 521-22 (Ind. 1983) (holding that the jury
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1603-CR-671 | October 17, 2016 Page 6 of 10
may consider a defendant’s attempts to provide falsehoods as evidence of
consciousness of guilt).
[13] A reasonable jury could have concluded, based upon the above evidence, that
Wagoner—the baby’s sole caregiver at the time she was fatally beaten—was the
perpetrator of her injuries. As to whether Wagoner acted knowingly, we note
that a defendant’s intent may be inferred from his “conduct and the natural and
usual sequence to which such conduct logically and reasonably points.” Stokes,
922 N.E.2d at 764. In this case, Z.W.’s abdominal injury was caused by such
severe physical force that it was comparable to someone killed in a traffic
accident or who had fallen from a two- or three-story window and landed on
her abdomen. A reasonable juror could infer that an adult male could not strike
a small infant in such a manner without understanding that there was a high
probability that it would kill her. We agree with the State that “[t]o believe
otherwise defies logic and human experience.” Appellee’s Br. p. 21. We find,
based on the evidence in the record, that a reasonable jury could have found
beyond a reasonable doubt that Wagoner knowingly killed Z.W. and we
decline to reverse on this basis.
B. Neglect
[14] Next, Wagoner argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction
for Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent. The jury convicted Wagoner of Level
1 felony neglect of a dependent, which required the State to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt, among other things, that Wagoner was at least eighteen years
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1603-CR-671 | October 17, 2016 Page 7 of 10
old and neglected Z.W., resulting in her death. I.C. § 35-46-1-4. As noted
above, however, the trial court reduced the conviction to a Level 6 felony,
removing the requirement of proof of Wagoner’s age. Id.
[15] Wagoner’s sole argument with respect to this conviction is that the State did not
sufficiently prove that he was at least eighteen when he neglected Z.W. As he
was ultimately convicted of and sentenced on a Level 6 felony, however, we
need not determine whether the State adequately proved his age.
[16] That said, the State introduced into evidence Wagoner’s recorded interview
with law enforcement. Wagoner told law enforcement that his date of birth
was “5/27/84.” State’s Ex. 53. Moreover, the jury was presented with a
photograph of Wagoner holding Z.W.; from this photograph, the jury could
have reasonably inferred that Wagoner was over the age of eighteen when the
photograph was taken. State’s Ex. 2; see Rowe v. State, 867 N.E.2d 262, 266-67
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that where a defendant’s age is an element of the
offense, the jury can infer the defendant’s age through observation and
circumstantial evidence). Therefore, even if the State were required to prove
Wagoner’s age to support the neglect conviction, we find that the evidence was
sufficient to do so.
II. Appropriateness
[17] Finally, Wagoner contends that the sentence imposed by the trial court is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that this Court may revise a sentence if it is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1603-CR-671 | October 17, 2016 Page 8 of 10
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender. We must “conduct [this] review with substantial deference and give
‘due consideration’ to the trial court’s decision—since the ‘principal role of
[our] review is to attempt to leaven the outliers,’ and not to achieve a perceived
‘correct’ sentence . . . .” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014)
(quoting Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013)) (internal
citations omitted).
[18] For the murder conviction, Wagoner faced a possible sentence of forty-five to
sixty-five years imprisonment, with an advisory term of fifty-five years
imprisonment. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3. He received a maximum sixty-five-year
term. For the Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent conviction, Wagoner faced
a term of six months to two and one-half years imprisonment, with an advisory
term of one year. I.C. § 35-50-2-7. He received a maximum two-and-one-half-
year term, to be served consecutively to the murder sentence, but fully
suspended to probation.
[19] As to the nature of Wagoner’s offenses, it is challenging to find words that fully
capture the heinousness of his actions. As the parent of Z.W., as well as her
sole caregiver on the morning of her death, Wagoner held the ultimate position
of trust—and abused that position in a violent, horrifying fashion. Wagoner
knew that the infant was having difficulty that morning, as evidenced by his
texts to Jessica describing how Z.W. was vomiting, moaning, and acting
sleepier than normal, as well as the expressed concern of a fellow customer at a
convenience store about Z.W.’s labored breathing. But he did not seek medical
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1603-CR-671 | October 17, 2016 Page 9 of 10
attention because of concerns about the bruising to her face. And when she
stopped breathing, he did not call 911. Instead, he texted Jessica. Jessica asked
Coffin to run to the house, and when Coffin got there, Wagoner continued to
refuse to call 911. Finally, Coffin took his phone and called 911 herself. But by
then, it was too late. Wagoner later attempted to conceal his crime by
inventing a story that Z.W. had sustained her injuries by falling off of the bed.
To say the least, the nature of these offenses does not aid Wagoner’s
inappropriateness argument.
[20] As for Wagoner’s character, he has a criminal history dating back to when he
was a juvenile; his history also includes five adult felony convictions and a class
A misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. His probation was revoked in
almost every single one of these cases. He was on pretrial release for other
charges when he committed the instant offenses. Wagoner’s character does not
persuade us to find in his favor on his inappropriateness argument.
[21] It has often been said that maximum sentences should be reserved for the very
worst offenses and the very worst offenders. We do not fault the trial court for
finding that this case qualifies. The sentence imposed by the trial court is not
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and Wagoner’s character.
[22] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Najam, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1603-CR-671 | October 17, 2016 Page 10 of 10