Chance L. Mata v. State of Indiana
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case. Oct 23 2023, 8:56 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Brandon E. Murphy Cannon Bruns & Murphy Muncie, Indiana Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Alexandria Sons Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Chance L. Mata, October 23, 2023 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 23A-CR-1190 v. Appeal from the Jay Circuit Court State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff The Honorable Brian D. Hutchison, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 38C01-2301-F3-1 Memorandum Decision by Judge Weissmann Chief Judge Altice and Judge Kenworthy concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-CR-1190 | October 23, 2023 Page 1 of 7 Weissmann, Judge. [1] A jury convicted Chance Mata of Level 3 felony criminal confinement after he held his wife, Megan Mata, at knifepoint and refused to let her leave her apartment. On appeal, Chance challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that he substantially interfered with Megan’s liberty without her consent. We affirm. Facts [2] On the afternoon of January 27, 2023, Megan failed to pick up her children as scheduled from the home of their father, Ryan Adams. When Adams called Megan’s cellphone to inquire of her whereabouts, Chance answered the call on speakerphone and gave the phone to Megan, who told Adams she could not pick up their children. Adams sensed something was wrong and asked Megan for an explanation. But Megan simply repeated, “I can’t come get the kids,” and hung up. Tr. Vol. II, p. 56. Moments later, Adams received a text message from Megan that read, “Help me.” Exhs. Vol. I, p. 7. [3] Adams immediately contacted Megan’s grandfather, who in turn, called 911. Minutes later, Portland Police Officer Eric Fields arrived at Megan’s apartment, separated Megan from Chance, and began to question Megan about her wellbeing. Megan was distraught during Officer Fields’s questioning, which included the following exchange: [Officer] So we got a call saying [Chance] was holding you hostage. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-CR-1190 | October 23, 2023 Page 2 of 7 [Megan] Okay? [Officer] Is that true? [Megan] I mean, yeah. [Officer] Okay, how was he holding you hostage? [Megan] He didn’t let me leave. I was supposed to go get my kids, and I was supposed to be able to see my kids today, and he wouldn’t let me. [Officer] What’d he do to stop you? [Megan] He took my keys, and he held me with a knife. He cut my finger. [Officer] Okay. You know we can’t just let him walk away, right? [Megan] I know; I don’t want you to. I want to be away from him. I love him, but I know that he’s dangerous, and he’s scaring me. He held a razor blade to my throat! Exh. 17 (07:22-08:12). [4] After further police investigation, the State charged Chance with four crimes: (1) criminal confinement, a Level 3 felony; (2) battery with a deadly weapon, a Level 5 felony; (3) intimidation, a Level 5 felony; and (4) strangulation, a Level 6 felony. The State also alleged that Chance was a habitual offender based on two prior felony convictions. [5] At Chance’s jury trial, Megan testified that the ordeal began when Chance woke her up from a nap and demanded that she help him look for $20.00 he Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-CR-1190 | October 23, 2023 Page 3 of 7 had misplaced. Chance told Megan she could not pick up her children until they found the missing money, and he threatened to hurt Megan if she refused to help with the search. [6] Eventually, Chance brandished a knife and demanded that Megan drive him to an ATM and withdraw money for him from her debit account. Megan complied, but Chance did not calm down after receiving Megan’s money. While driving home from the ATM, he flashed the knife at Megan and again told her she could not pick up her children. [7] Back at Megan’s apartment, Chance continued “freaking out” about money. Tr. Vol. II, p. 52. He ordered Megan to sit on their couch and once again told her she could not pick up her children. At one point, Chance grabbed Megan by the neck and held the knife a few inches from her throat. Megan believed Chance was going to hurt her and was very scared. [8] In addition to Megan’s testimony, the State presented Officer Fields’s bodycam footage of him questioning Megan at the scene. The State also presented an audio recording of a jailhouse telephone call between Megan and Chance. During this call, Chance urged Megan to retract her statements to police and refuse to testify at his trial. Megan also mentioned that Chance threatened to kill her children during the ordeal. Exh. 6 (04:55). [9] The jury found Chance guilty of Level 3 felony criminal confinement and Level 5 felony intimidation. The jury also determined that Chance was a habitual offender. But it acquitted Chance of strangulation and did not reach a Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-CR-1190 | October 23, 2023 Page 4 of 7 unanimous verdict on the battery charge, which was ultimately dismissed. The trial court entered judgments of conviction on the criminal confinement and intimidation charges and sentenced Chance to a total of 26 years in prison, including habitual offender enhancements. Chance appeals only his criminal confinement conviction. Decision [10] Chance argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him of Level 3 felony criminal confinement. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). We consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence. Id. We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. [11] Indiana’s criminal confinement statute states: “A person who knowingly or intentionally confines another person without the other person’s consent commits criminal confinement,” a Level 6 felony. Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3(a). However, the offense is a Level 3 felony if it is committed “while armed with a deadly weapon.” Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3(b)(3)(A). As used in the statute, the term “confine” means to “substantially interfere with the liberty of a person.” Ind. Code § 35-42-3-1. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-CR-1190 | October 23, 2023 Page 5 of 7 [12] Chance claims the evidence does not establish that he substantially interfered with Megan’s liberty because, on direct examination at trial, Megan testified as follows: [State] Okay. At any point in time did you feel like you could just get up and walk out of there and go get your kids like you wanted to? [Megan] I mean, there was (sic) times that I felt like I couldn’t leave at all, yeah. [State] Okay. And is that because you were afraid of what Chance would do with that knife if you got up and tried to leave? [Megan] And I was also mainly worried that—I just wanted to go get my kids. . . . Tr. Vol. II, p. 57. [13] According to Chance, the above testimony does not show that Megan felt confined to her apartment; it only shows that she felt intimidated from going to a particular place (i.e., to Adams’s home to pick up her children). But Chance’s interpretation ignores that Megan explicitly stated that there were times she felt she “couldn’t leave at all.” Id. Moreover, Megan’s testimony was not the only evidence of her confinement. The State presented Officer Fields’s bodycam footage of Megan confirming that Chance held her “hostage” by putting a knife to her throat and refusing to let her leave. Supra ¶ 3. This is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chance substantially interfered with Megan’s liberty. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-CR-1190 | October 23, 2023 Page 6 of 7 [14] Finding sufficient evidence to support Chance’s conviction for Level 3 felony criminal confinement, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Altice, C.J., and Kenworthy, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-CR-1190 | October 23, 2023 Page 7 of 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
