Reginald Darnell Porter, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Reginald D. Porter appeals his conviction and sentence for Level 5 felony domestic battery resulting in serious bodily injury. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in two regards: instructing the jury and sentencing.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Porter began dating N.C. in May 2021, and N.C. began residing at Porter's home the next month. She stayed there most nights but by mid-September their relationship had become “very rocky.” Transcript Vol. 3 at 86. On September 16, N.C. did not spend the night with Porter. She returned to his home the next morning, and Porter apologized for an earlier disagreement and asked N.C. to go to lunch with him. N.C. agreed.

[4] On their way back from lunch, Porter began “accusing [N.C.] of things” as they pulled up to the house. Id. at 55. N.C. then walked into the house, refusing to engage with Porter. N.C. told Porter in the kitchen that the conversation was over. Porter then walked outside and returned with a broken table leg from a nightstand that had been in the backyard. He threw the wooden table leg at N.C., striking her in the face and causing a large gash and extreme pain. N.C. fell to the ground bleeding.

[5] N.C. ran outside and called 911, reporting that Porter had thrown something at her face causing it to “bust open.” Exhibit Vol. 2 at 2 (recording of 911 call). Less than a minute into the call, Porter approached, struggled with N.C., and took the phone away from her. N.C. can be heard on the recording pleading with Porter to stop and with the operator to please help. The call then went silent for about ninety seconds until Porter hung up. The 911 operator immediately called back, and N.C. was able to answer using her smartwatch, saying, “please come help me.” Id. She then reiterated that Porter had thrown a “wooden piece” at her face and stated that he had locked her out of the house. Id. The operator told N.C. that police were on the way, and N.C. indicated that Porter was inside, so she was currently safe.

[6] After the call ended and before police arrived, N.C. opened the gate and entered the backyard. Porter immediately struck her in the face with a shovel. N.C. then tried to hurry inside the house and lock Porter out for her safety, but he grabbed her and threw her to the ground. Porter climbed on top of N.C. and punched her three times in the face, knocking her unconscious for a bit.

[7] As responding officers arrived, N.C. stumbled down the driveway. Porter locked himself inside the house. Gary Police Department Officer Phillip Cook described N.C.’s demeanor at the time: “She was crying hysterically, I mean, tears flowing, snot flowing. She was hysterical, no shoes on.” Transcript Vol. 3 at 196. N.C. spit out a tooth into the palm of her hand while talking with Officer Cook. In fact, she lost two teeth during the attack and two others were injured. Officer Cook also observed “a large gash in the side of her head” that he described as a “wide open wound.” Id. at 185.

[8] On September 18, 2021, the State charged Porter with five counts: Count I, Level 5 felony domestic battery by means of a deadly weapon (a shovel); Count II, Level 5 felony domestic battery resulting in serious bodily injury (large, deep laceration next to her left eye from being struck with the table leg); Count III, Level 5 felony domestic battery resulting in serious bodily injury (tooth knocked out from being punched several times in face); Count IV, Level 6 felony strangulation; and Count V, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

[9] Porter's jury trial was held in January 2025. At the conclusion of the State's evidence, the trial court granted Porter's motion for a directed verdict on Counts IV and V without objection from the State. Thereafter, the jury found Porter guilty on count II and not guilty on Counts I and III.

[10] On February 26, 2025, the trial court sentenced Porter to five and one-half years in prison. The court found no mitigating circumstances and the following three aggravating circumstances: Porter's prior criminal history; his past probation violations; and the harm suffered by N.C. was greater than the elements necessary to prove the commission of the offense.

[11] Porter now appeals. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Discussion & Decision

1. Instructional Error

[12] Porter initially contends that the trial court abused its discretion when instructing the jury. Specifically, he directs us to Instruction 3:

DOMESTIC BATTERY RESULTING IN SERIOUS BODILY INJURY charged in Count II is defined by law as follows:

A person who knowingly or intentionally touches a family or household member in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits Domestic Battery, a Class A misdemeanor.

The offense is a Level 5 felony if one or more of the following apply:

* the offense results in serious bodily injury to a family or household member

* the offense is committed with a deadly weapon against a family or household member

* the offense results in bodily injury to a pregnant family or household member if the person knew of the pregnancy

* the offense results in bodily injury to

* a family or household member who has a mental or physical disability if the offense is committed by a person having the care of the family or household member with the disability, regardless of whether the care is assumed voluntarily or because of a legal obligation, or

* family or household member who is an endangered adult (as defined in IC 12-10-3-2).

Before you may convict the Defendant, the State must have proved each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The Defendant

2. knowingly or intentionally

3. touched [N.C.], a family or household member, to wit: his girlfriend,

4. in a rude, insolent, or angry manner

5. by striking [N.C.] in the face with a broken end table leg resulting in serious bodily injury, to wit: a large, deep laceration next to her left eye.

If the State failed to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the Defendant not guilty of Domestic Battery Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury, a Level 5 felony, charged in Count II.

Appellant's Appendix Vol. 3 at 41-42 (emphasis supplied).

[13] On appeal, Porter challenges the highlighted portion of the instruction and argues “girlfriend” does not necessarily equate to a “family or household member,” which term is statutorily defined to include someone the defendant “is dating or had dated[.]”¹ Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-128(a)(2); see also Appellant's Appendix Vol. 3 at 46 (Instruction 6 providing said statutory definition). Noting a Wikipedia definition of girlfriend, Porter observes that the term “can simply mean a female with whom one regularly engages, but not of a romantic or sexual nature.” Appellant's Brief at 13. His argument continues: “The instruction given allowed the jury to convict Porter for [N.C.] being a family or household member or a girlfriend. One was permissible while the other was not.” Id. at 14.

[14] Setting aside the dubious merits of Porter's arguments, we find that he has waived this issue by failing to raise it below. See Luna v. State, 758 N.E.2d 515, 518 (Ind. 2001) (“In order for this Court to consider this issue on appeal, the defendant must have properly objected to the jury instruction.”). Ind. Trial Rule 51(C) states in part: “No party may claim as error the giving of an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.” This rule facilitates correction of instructional error before a case is submitted to the jury, and thus where a party fails to adequately identify the matter to which he objects or the grounds of his objection, the claim of error is waived. See Scisney v. State, 701 N.E.2d 847, 849 (Ind. 1998) (finding appellate review waived where general objection “failed to explain to the trial court why the instruction was unclear or what could be done to correct the instruction”).

[15] Here, Porter did not make the specific objection that he now asserts on appeal. His sole objection was to the first half of Instruction 3, which set out the statutory definition of domestic battery and listed each of the enhancing circumstances that the statute provides for elevating domestic battery to a Level 5 felony. Porter specifically requested that “the additional enhancing factors listed in the statute be removed from the instruction” because including them “serves no helpful purpose to the jury ․ and only creates the danger of confusion.” Transcript Vol. 3 at 245. In overruling Porter's objection, the trial court stated in part: “It serves a definition purpose, and they are instructed of the more specific findings they have to make at the end of [the] instruction, so we're not going to alter it at this time.” Id. at 246. Porter made no trial objection to the last portion of Instruction 3, which is the portion he now challenges on appeal. Accordingly, this new claim of error is waived.² See Scisney, 701 N.E.2d at 849.

2. Abuse of Sentencing Discretion

[16] Porter also challenges his sentence, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when considering aggravating circumstances.

“[S]entencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (2007). When imposing a sentence for a felony offense, a trial court must enter a sentencing statement explaining the reasons it imposed a particular sentence. Id. A trial court may abuse its discretion by failing to enter this statement, by overlooking reasons that are clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration, or by considering reasons that are not supported by the record or are improper.

Carranza v. State, 184 N.E.3d 712, 717 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). Further, “the relative weight or value assignable to reasons properly found is not subject to review for abuse of discretion.” Green v. State, 65 N.E.3d 620, 637 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.

[17] Porter has nine prior misdemeanor convictions and two prior felony convictions, yet he argues that these contacts with the legal system were not aggravating because most involved alcohol-related offenses and the lone battery offense was committed in 1999. There is no merit to this argument, as it is indisputable that a trial court may consider criminal history as an aggravating circumstance in determining what sentence to impose. See Ind. Code § 35-38-1-7.1(a)(2); McElfresh v. State, 51 N.E.3d 103, 112 (Ind. 2016) (observing that while the weight of this statutory aggravator may vary based on gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses, a trial court's consideration of it is not an abuse of discretion); Harris v. State, 163 N.E.3d 938, 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (“Thus, the weight of criminal history may vary, but consideration of it is not an abuse of discretion.”), trans. denied.

[18] In effect, Porter is challenging the moderate weight the trial court gave to his criminal history. But the weight a trial court gives to an aggravating factor is not reviewable on appeal. Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491 (“The relative weight or value assignable to reasons [for imposing a particular sentence] ․ is not subject to review for abuse.”).

[19] Porter also challenges the trial court's determination that the harm, injury, loss, or damage suffered by N.C. was significant and greater than the elements necessary to prove the commission of the offense. In this regard, the trial court noted: “The victim suffers continued psychological anxiety and trauma these many years later based on the Defendant's attack and the physical and emotional scars he caused. Her trauma caused her to leave her very successful employment as a business executive.” Appellant's Appendix Vol. 3 at 91.

[20] As Porter observes, for psychological trauma to a victim to be a valid aggravator, “the trial court must explain why the impact suffered by the victim[ ] exceeded that which is normally associated with the crime.” Walden v. State, 216 N.E.3d 1165, 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. We disagree with Porter, however, that the trial court failed to make such an explanation here. Porter's sentencing occurred three and one-half years after the crime, yet N.C. was still suffering physically and emotionally from the brutal attack, which caused her to lose multiple teeth, injured other teeth, and left her with a permanent scar on her face. In her victim impact letter, N.C. described ongoing physical and emotional pain. She indicated that at the time of sentencing, she was still suffering from oral infections and had yet to have her teeth replaced. Further, due to her “extreme anxiety, fear and insecurities [she] developed from the scar on [her] face and missing teeth,” N.C. stepped down from a successful, executive position that required her to be customer facing. Supplemental Exhibit Vol. at 3. We do not agree with Porter's assertion that “the symptoms experienced by [N.C. were] exactly the symptoms that one would expect as a consequence” of domestic battery resulting in serious bodily injury. Appellant's Brief at 18. Nor do we agree that the trial court abused its broad discretion by considering this aggravator under the specific circumstances of this case.

[21] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that the nature of Porter and N.C.’s relationship was not disputed below. In fact, defense counsel “concede[d]” during closing arguments that “there's no disputing they had an intimate relationship at some point in time[.]” Transcript Vol. 4 at 14.

2.   Porter does not argue that the alleged instructional error amounted to fundamental error, and thus any such claim is waived. See Curtis v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1143, 1148 (Ind. 2011) (“Because Curtis failed to allege fundamental error in his principal appellate brief, this issue is waived.”).

Altice, Chief Judge.

Judges Pyle and Tavitas concur. Pyle, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.