Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CR-287 | August 9, 2017 Page 1 of 4

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Barbara J. Simmons

Oldenburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. MacKenzie

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tiffany Patton,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 9, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1702-CR-287

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Clayton Graham, 

Judge

The Honorable Anne Flannelly, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G07-1609-CM-35615

Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CR-287 | August 9, 2017 Page 2 of 4

Case Summary

[1] Following a bench trial, Tiffany Patton was convicted of Class A misdemeanor 

battery. Patton now appeals, arguing that the State presented insufficient 

evidence to rebut her self-defense claim.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On September 10, 2016, Patton was involved in a car accident with Anita Cole. 

After the accident, Patton exited her vehicle, ran up to Cole, called Cole a 

“bitch,” and struck Cole on the left side of her head, causing pain. At no point 

in the altercation did Cole touch or strike Patton. Patton called 911 after the 

accident and asked the dispatcher to “hurry up and get somebody out here 

before I hit [Cole].” Transcript Vol. II at 34. Police arrived shortly thereafter, 

and when Cole told an officer that Patton had slapped her, Patton responded by 

stating “I didn’t hit you that hard.” Id. at 16. Patton told police that she was 

upset because Cole had hit her vehicle and did not have insurance and that she 

had slapped Cole in the face. At no point did Patton claim that she had been 

threatened, touched, or struck by Cole.

[4] As a result of these events, the State charged Patton with Class A misdemeanor 

battery. A bench trial was held on January 18, 2017, at the conclusion of which 

Patton was found guilty as charged. The trial court imposed a one-year 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CR-287 | August 9, 2017 Page 3 of 4

sentence, the entirety of which was suspended to probation. Patton now 

appeals.

Discussion & Decision

[5] Patton argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to rebut her selfdefense claim. The standard for reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of 

evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same standard used for any claim 

of insufficient evidence. Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 2000). We 

neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. If there 

is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of 

fact, the judgment will not be disturbed. Id. “A valid claim of self-defense is 

legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.” Id.

[6] To prevail on her self-defense claim, Patton was required to show that she: (1) 

was in a place where she had a right to be; (2) acted without fault; and (3) was 

in reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm. Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 

274, 277 (Ind. 2003); see also Ind. Code. § 35-41-3-2. A person who provokes, 

instigates, or participates willingly in the violence does not act without fault for 

the purposes of self-defense. Shoultz v. State, 995 N.E.2d 647, 660 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2013). 

[7] When a self-defense claim is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State 

bears the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements. Wilson v. 

State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002). The State may meet its burden by 

offering evidence directly rebutting the defense, by affirmatively showing that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CR-287 | August 9, 2017 Page 4 of 4

the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by relying upon the sufficiency of 

the evidence from its case-in-chief. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind. 

1999). If a defendant is convicted despite a claim of self-defense, we will 

reverse only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800-01.

[8] Patton’s arguments are nothing more than requests to reweigh the evidence and 

judge the credibility of witnesses, which we will not do on appeal. The 

testimony of Cole and the responding officers amply supports a conclusion that 

Patton attacked Cole in anger because she believed Cole was at fault for the 

accident. The fact-finder was in no way obligated to accept Patton’s self-serving 

testimony to the contrary. The evidence presented was more than sufficient to 

rebut Patton’s self-defense claim.

[9] Judgment affirmed.

[10] Baker, J. and Bailey, J., concur.