Ezekiel L. Cooper, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Ezekiel L. Cooper appeals from his convictions for Level 6 felony domestic battery and Class B misdemeanor false informing. He contends there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial. We conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support his convictions. And we conclude that the court did not err by denying the motion for mistrial. Therefore, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 6, 2025, Elkhart police officers Dexter Harris, Dustin Voss, and Randy Allen responded to a dispatch reporting domestic violence. When the officers arrived, they spoke with the victim, Tiara Taylor. The officers observed that Taylor had a large, fresh, and shiny bruise on her face underneath her left eye. When Officer Allen asked how Taylor would rate her pain on a scale of one being minimal and ten being excruciating, she replied that her pain level was a seven. The officer noted that Taylor appeared concerned and was adamant that the officers locate Cooper. She was in a heightened emotional state, was stuttering and speaking rapidly, was upset, traumatized, and teary-eyed. And she was also angry, and called Cooper a “bitch.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 95.

[3] Taylor told officers that she had been hit and the blow to her head had dazed her. She described the blow as a surprise, and she believed that Cooper used the back of his hand to strike her. She said that Cooper's blow to her face knocked her to the ground. Taylor acknowledged that the two had been arguing, and then the next thing she knew, she was down on the ground seeing stars.

[4] Taylor immediately identified Cooper as her assailant and spelled his name for Officer Harris to record. She told the officers that this was the third time he had been violent with her and not the first time he had bruised her. Officer Harris photographed Taylor's injuries, which included the bruise as well as slight bleeding, redness along her jawline and neck, broken skin, and wounds consistent with blunt-force trauma. Taylor was worried about Cooper watching her.

[5] Officer Voss learned that Cooper had left the scene and began searching for him. During the search, Officer Voss learned that the other officers had probable cause to arrest Cooper. He found Cooper nearby, lying on the ground, and when he spoke with him, Cooper gave him a false name—Matthew Johnson—and a false date of birth. When the officer checked with dispatch, he learned that the personal identification information did not match any known individual. And Cooper incorrectly told the officer that he was homeless.

[6] Cooper was arrested and charged with Level 6 felony battery and Class B misdemeanor false informing. After his arrest, Cooper made two phone calls from jail. One call was placed to a friend on April 6, 2025. During the call, Cooper spoke about females, in general, in a derogatory manner. The second call, placed on April 7, 2025, was to Taylor.

[7] Officer Barry Snyder, who commonly and regularly reviews phone calls between the incarcerated suspects of domestic violence and their victims, testified that he frequently hears the parties discuss the dismissal of the charges. He testified that the perpetrator will often attempt to persuade the victim to drop the charges out of love, marriage, or prior good times. Cooper's phone calls were recorded. In the April 6 phone call to a friend, he admitted to striking Taylor with the back of his hand. In his call to Taylor, he discussed being in love with her still and dropping the charges.

[8] Officer Voss, who has handled over 1,000 domestic violence cases, testified that it is not uncommon for victims to be cooperative when first reporting the violence and to become uncooperative later. He stated that this happens for a variety of reasons, given the cyclical pattern of domestic violence, including intimidation, being pressured, financial instability or financial dependence on the abuser, or the belief that the pattern of violence is normal.

[9] The defense called Taylor as a witness. Taylor testified that Cooper was never violent with her. She also testified that she did not recall telling officers on the day of the reported crime that this was the third time Cooper had been violent with her and that it was not the first time he had bruised her. On cross-examination, to refute Taylor's testimony that Cooper had never been violent with her, the State asked about a December 23, 2023 incident when Cooper hit her in the face multiple times, bruising her, and resulting in her calling 911. Taylor denied recalling the 2023 battery. But Taylor affirmed that there was a no-contact order in place prohibiting him from contacting her. And she confirmed that she attempted to have the charges dropped.

[10] The State called Officer Allen to testify as a rebuttal witness. His body camera footage from the evening of the incident was entered into evidence as State's Exhibit 10. And Cooper did not object to its admission. Tr. Vol. III, p. 95. Although the State represented that Exhibit 10 would be redacted to remove references to Cooper wearing an ankle monitor because he was on house arrest, the State did not redact the body camera footage. Instead, the State said it was “pausing the video at minute mark 10:20, and [would] mute it in order to accord with the Indiana Rules of Evidence.” Id. at 96. The audio recording included reports from dispatch, information about unrelated cases, and references to the description of the subject, along with Taylor's statements to the officers that Cooper was wearing an ankle bracelet because he was on house arrest. Ex. Conv. Vol. 5, p. 6 (State's Exhibit 10; Allen Full Bodycam). Cooper moved for a mistrial after the audio recording was played for the jury. Following argument by counsel, the court denied Cooper's motion, stating that the ambiguity of the connection of the audio recording information to Cooper, combined with the evidence at trial, made his exposure to peril low.

[11] The State then asked the court to admit State's Exhibit 11, which was a redacted portion of Officer Allen's body camera videotape. State's Exhibit 11 depicted Taylor's identification of Cooper as the person who hit her and her detailed chronology of the events leading up to and including the incident. Cooper's counsel requested that the court disallow the introduction of that evidence as a sanction for not redacting State's Exhibit 10. The court denied Cooper's request, and State's Exhibit 11 was played for the jury. State's Exhibit 11 did not include a reference to Cooper wearing an ankle monitor or being on house arrest.

[12] At the conclusion of Cooper's jury trial he was found guilty of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and Class B misdemeanor false informing. Cooper admitted to having a prior conviction for domestic battery, elevating his Class A misdemeanor conviction to Level 6 felony domestic battery. The court sentenced Cooper to two years for the Level 6 felony conviction and to one hundred and eighty days executed for the Class B misdemeanor conviction, to be served concurrently.

Discussion and Decision

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[13] Cooper claims that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. “Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims ․ warrant a deferential standard, in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256, 262 (Ind. 2020). “Rather, we consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.” Id. “[A court on review] will affirm a conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value that would lead a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 263.

[14] To establish that Cooper committed Level 6 felony domestic battery, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Cooper knowingly or intentionally touched (2) Taylor, a person who is a family or household member (3) in a rude, insolent or angry manner. Appellant's App. Conf. Vol. II, p. 86; Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1) (2021). The crime is elevated to a Level 6 felony if the defendant has a previous, unrelated conviction for a battery offense included in that chapter of the code. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(b)(1)(A) (2021).

[15] The evidence established at trial revealed that on April 6 Cooper admitted to a friend during a jail call that he struck Taylor with the back of his hand. That admission was consistent with the kind of blow Taylor described to the responding officers. Additionally, when the officers arrived, Taylor immediately identified Cooper as the person who struck her. Officer Allen testified about his observations of Taylor's injuries to her face and that Taylor rated her pain as a seven on a scale of one to ten. He also testified that Taylor was “adamant” that the officers locate Cooper, and she was very concerned about his large family's reaction to the charges. Tr. Vol. II, pp. 182-83.

[16] Cooper points to Taylor's testimony at trial during which she recanted her statements made to the officers. Appellant's Br. p. 14. However, Officer Voss testified about his experience investigating crimes of domestic violence. He testified that it is common for victims to be hesitant to testify against their attacker due to a variety of factors. Officer Snyder testified that he monitors inmate calls to the victims of domestic violence. He stated that it is common for perpetrators and victims to discuss dropping the charges, which is exactly what happened here. “[D]omestic violence offenses sometimes lend themselves to complaining witnesses recanting, failing to appear at trial for all sorts of reasons, and in rarer instances being intimidated into not testifying against the perpetrator.” Gordon v. State, 743 N.E.2d 376, 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

[17] And Cooper admitted that he had a previous, unrelated qualifying conviction. This elevated the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony offense. Furthermore, we decline to reweigh the evidence. Therefore, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support Cooper's conviction of Level 6 felony domestic battery.

[18] To establish that Cooper committed Class B misdemeanor false informing, the State was required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Cooper (2) gave false information about his identity (3) that relates to the commission of a crime (4) knowing the report or information to be false. Appellant's App. Conf. Vol. II, p. 86; Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-3(d)(1)(B) (2024). Cooper denied that he committed the domestic battery and argues that because “[h]e was not covering [up] the commission of a crime when he did not identify himself,” he did not commit the crime of false informing. Appellant's Br. p. 14.

[19] The evidence produced at trial reflects that when Officer Voss found Cooper lying down, Cooper gave a false name and fictitious date of birth to the law enforcement officer who was investigating the domestic battery and was searching for Cooper. We have held that when an individual lies to law enforcement officers about his name and birth date, presumably to conceal his fugitive status, the evidence is sufficient to support a charge of false informing. Smith v. State, 660 N.E.2d 357, 359 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). And the officer's testimony alone is sufficient to support the conviction because “ ‘[t]he uncorroborated testimony of one witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction.’ ” Id. (quoting Wray v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1062, 1068 (Ind. 1989)).

[20] We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Cooper's conviction for false informing as a Class B misdemeanor.

II. Motion for Mistrial

[21] Cooper argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial after the State played Exhibit 10 for the jury during rebuttal. The exhibit included references to the description of the subject and the words ankle bracelet and house arrest. He contends that the introduction of that evidence placed him in grave peril. Appellant's Br. pp. 11-12.

[22] Our standard of review is well settled.

The trial court is in the best position to assess the impact of a particular event upon the jury. Thus, the decision of whether to grant or deny a motion for mistrial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon an abuse of that discretion. The denial of a motion for mistrial will be reversed only upon a showing that the defendant was placed in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected. The declaration of a mistrial is an extreme action and is warranted only when no other action can be expected to remedy the situation. The burden on appeal is upon the defendant to show that he was placed in grave peril by the denial of the mistrial motion. The defendant on appeal also has the burden to show that no other action could have remedied the perilous situation into which he was placed.

Wilson v. State, 865 N.E.2d 1024, 1027-28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Anderson v. State, 774 N.E.2d 906, 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citations omitted)). And gravity of peril is measured by the conduct's probable persuasive effect on the jury. Pittman v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1246, 1255 (Ind. 2008).

[23] Although the State argues that the word “arrest” is barely audible or not audible, the words “ankle bracelet” and “house arrest” can be distinctly heard on the audio part of the recording as it appears in the record on appeal. The transcript of the trial shows that the State said it was muting the video at the part of the body camera footage where Taylor mentions that Cooper is wearing an ankle bracelet because he is on house arrest. However, the court agreed with Cooper's counsel that the first part of the word “arrest” could be heard.

[24] Nevertheless, we measure the gravity of the peril by the conduct's probable persuasive effect on the jury. Here, we find that the evidence of Cooper's guilt was overwhelming such that the State's failure to redact Exhibit 10 did not place Cooper in grave peril. At that point in the trial, the jury had already heard Cooper's admission to a third party that he had hit Taylor with the back of his hand. And the officers had testified to the observations of Taylor's injuries, her identification of Cooper as her assailant, and her concern that he could be nearby and watching. Furthermore, the jury had heard an explanation as to why Taylor testified for the defense and recanted her battery claims against Cooper. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial.

Conclusion

[25] The evidence is sufficient to support Cooper's convictions of domestic battery and false informing. We decline his invitation to reweigh the evidence. And we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to deny Cooper's motion for mistrial. There was overwhelming evidence of Cooper's guilt, including his own admission, such that he was not placed in grave peril by the State's introduction of an unredacted copy of State's Exhibit 10. Therefore, we affirm the trial court in all respects.

[26] Affirmed.

Robb, Senior Judge.

Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.