Mitchell B. Pavnica, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Mitchell B. Pavnica appeals his conviction for Level 5 felony battery with a deadly weapon, arguing the State presented insufficient evidence to prove the bowl he used was a deadly weapon. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 20, 2024, Heather Muska was at home with her husband and their eight-year-old daughter. That evening, Pavnica, whose father lived next door to Muska, was pacing on the sidewalk, shouting and pointing at Muska's home. Muska's husband thought he heard Pavnica yell, “[m]urder[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 91. At some point surrounding this incident, the Muskas’ car windshield was smashed. Pavnica then went to the back of Muska's home and began opening and closing the screen storm door. Muska called 9-1-1.

[3] While she was speaking with the dispatcher, Pavnica broke the glass of Muska's back door with a wooden stepladder and entered her kitchen. Muska's husband retreated upstairs with their daughter, and Muska ran towards the front door through the living room. Pavnica picked up a ceramic or stoneware bowl from the open dishwasher and pursued Muska into the living room. When he reached Muska, Pavnica struck her in the back of the head with the ceramic bowl then ran out the back door. Muska told the dispatcher that she was “bleeding from the back of her head really, like a lot.” Ex. Vol. I, State's Ex. 1, 4:01-4:05. Muska went to the emergency room by ambulance for treatment of a “hematoma” and “scalp laceration.” Id., State's Ex. 25, p. 35.

[4] The State charged Pavnica with Level 5 felony battery with a deadly weapon, Level 6 felony residential entry, and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.¹ A jury trial was held in February 2025. Before deliberating, the jury was instructed on the definition of a deadly weapon. The jury found Pavnica guilty on all three counts. The trial court sentenced Pavnica to four years, with two executed in the Indiana Department of Correction and two suspended to probation. Pavnica now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Pavnica challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that the ceramic bowl used was a deadly weapon. Our standard of review is well settled:

For sufficiency of the evidence challenges, we consider only probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact. On sufficiency challenges, we will neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021) (citations omitted).

[6] To convict Pavnica of battery by means of a deadly weapon, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally touched Muska in a rude, insolent, or angry manner by striking her head with the ceramic bowl, a deadly weapon. Ind. Code §§ 35-42-2-1(c)(1), -1(g)(2) (2020). A “deadly weapon” includes a “destructive device, weapon, device ․ equipment ․ or other material that in the manner it: (A) is used; (B) could ordinarily be used; or (C) is intended to be used; is readily capable of causing serious bodily injury.” Ind. Code. § 35-31.5-2-86(a) (2012). “Serious bodily injury” is “bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes” “serious permanent disfigurement[,]” “unconsciousness[,]” or “extreme pain[,]” among other things. Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-292 (2012).

[7] Whether an object is a deadly weapon is a question of fact “determined from a description of the weapon, the manner of its use, and the circumstances of the case.” Gleason v. State, 965 N.E.2d 702, 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citation omitted). “[T]he manner in which the defendant actually used the object is examined[,]” not the object's original purpose. Id. (citation omitted). “We look to the capacity of the object to inflict serious bodily injury under the factual circumstances of the case.” Timm v. State, 644 N.E.2d 1235, 1238 (Ind. 1994).

[8] Here, Pavnica struck Muska in the back of the head with a ceramic bowl. The strike caused her to bleed “a lot[,]” and the bowl was “shattered” on Muska's living room floor after the attack. Ex. Vol. I, State's Ex. 1, 3:55-4:05. Muska testified that there were “a whole bunch of blood stains down the back of [her] dress” and that she “had to take a towel [to] stop the blood.” Tr. Vol. I p. 127. Later, Muska was treated in the emergency room for a laceration to the back of her head. Whether the jury found Muska's injuries serious in this case is not dispositive: rather, the jury could have reasonably concluded on these facts that the ceramic bowl was capable of causing serious bodily injury. See e.g., Timm, 644 N.E.2d at 1238 (where victim was struck in the face with a plastic flashlight that shattered upon impact, the jury could have reasonably concluded the object was capable of causing serious bodily injury even if the jury found victim's injuries were not serious). Therefore, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Pavnica battered Muska with a deadly weapon.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State also charged Pavnica with Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, attendant to an alleged incident between Pavnica and his father earlier in the day, and a second count of Class B criminal mischief. Both charges were dismissed before trial.

Scheele, Judge.

Judges Brown and Felix concur. Brown, J., and Felix, J., concur.