Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2304 | February 25, 2019 Page 1 of 6

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

Timothy J. Burns

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Taylor C. Byrley

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joe Bass,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

February 25, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2304

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Clayton Graham,

Judge

The Honorable Anne Flannelly, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G07-1805-CM-16962

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2304 | February 25, 2019 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Joe Bass was convicted of Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily 

injury after he initiated and participated in a physical altercation with his 

nephew. Bass challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his 

conviction, arguing that the State failed to rebut his claim that he acted in selfdefense. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 26, 2018, Trelen Whitfield was sitting in his great-grandmother’s living 

room watching television when Bass entered the home. Bass is Whitfield’s 

great-uncle1 and lived in Whitfield’s great-grandmother’s home. It appeared to 

Whitfield that Bass had been drinking. Bass approached Whitfield, “sort of 

went off on” Whitfield accusing Whitfield of asking him to sell drugs.2 Tr. p. 8. 

Bass appeared angry when he approached Whitfield. He “grabbed” Whitfield 

by the shirt, “pulled [him] up out [of] the chair,” and slapped him before 

pushing Whitfield “up against the wall” and hitting him “two more times.” Tr. 

pp. 8–9. Bass’s actions caused Whitfield to feel pain. Whitfield was eventually 

able to leave the home.

 

1

 While Whitfield refers to Bass as his uncle, the record demonstrates that Bass is actually Whitfield’s greatuncle. 

2

 Whitfield denies ever asking Bass to sell drugs for him.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2304 | February 25, 2019 Page 3 of 6

[3] Whitfield’s mother Lashawnda Hinton arrived at the home a short time after 

Whitfield left. Hinton called the police and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police 

Officer Paul Bellows was dispatched to the home. Bass, however, left the home 

before Officer Bellows arrived. 

[4] Hinton called police and Officer Bellows was dispatched to the home a second 

time after Bass returned to the home. When Officer Bellows arrived, Bass was 

“pacing back and forth in the living room, and he was yelling and screaming.” 

Tr. p. 25. Once Bass calmed down, he admitted “Yes, I put my hands on 

[Whitfield’s] face.” Tr. p. 27. At some point, Whitfield returned to the home. 

Officer Bellows spoke to Bass, Hinton, and Whitfield before placing Bass under 

arrest. 

[5] On May 27, 2018, the State charged Bass with two counts of Class A 

misdemeanor battery and one count of Class B misdemeanor disorderly 

conduct. The trial court conducted a bench trial on August 29, 2018. At trial, 

Whitfield was asked if at any point he had gotten in Bass’s face or made any 

contact with Bass. Whitfield responded “Never. I never even got up out [of] 

my seat.” Tr. p. 14. Following the conclusion of the State’s evidence, the trial 

court dismissed the battery charge that related to Hinton. The trial continued 

on the remaining battery and disorderly conduct charges. Bass then testified

that he started arguing with Whitfield because Whitfield had “been 

disrespecting” him. Tr. p. 34. He claimed that during the argument, Whitfield 

stood up, bumped him, and “started to get in [his] face.” Tr. p. 34. He 

testified that he then “just grabbed [Whitfield] and pushed him out [of his] way 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2304 | February 25, 2019 Page 4 of 6

and told him to get away from me.” Tr. p. 34. Bass, however, denied striking 

Whitfield. During closing argument, defense counsel stated the following:

Your Honor, the State has failed to meet their burden of proving 

my client’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What we have here 

is a family disagreement that got out of hand. All we have is 

evidence of battery.... You heard [Bass testify] that he was 

approached in an aggressive, rude, insolent manner by 

[Whitfield] and that he responded by using the most intrusive --

less intrusive means necessary. He was inside the house that he 

lives in with his mother, with her consent, and he simply, with 

the intent of de-escalating the situation, took him by his collar, 

after being bumped in the chest, and removed [Whitfield] from 

the home. You heard testimony that there is no bruising, no 

marks, no bleeding, no physical evidence.... There simply just 

isn’t enough here to prove my client’s guilt, and that’s why he 

should be found not guilty as to Count II, battery resulting in 

bodily injury, and not guilty of Count III, disorderly conduct. 

The State has failed to meet their burden of proving either of 

these beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tr. pp. 37–38. 

[6] The trial court found Bass guilty of both Class A misdemeanor battery resulting 

in bodily injury and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. In making this 

finding, the trial court explicitly stated that it found “that Trelen Whitfield was 

credible.” Tr. p. 38. The trial court merged the conviction for disorderly 

conduct into the battery conviction, noting that “the facts used to prove Count 

III are really so close to the same facts as proving Count II.” Tr. p. 39. The 

trial court sentenced Bass to 365 days in the Marion County Jail, with credit for 

time served and the remaining portion suspended to probation. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2304 | February 25, 2019 Page 5 of 6

Discussion and Decision

[7] Bass challenges the sufficiency of the evidence contending that the State failed 

to rebut his claim of self-defense.3 

A valid claim of defense of oneself or another person is legal 

justification for an otherwise criminal act. In order to prevail on 

such a claim, the defendant must show that he: (1) was in a place 

where he had a right to be; (2) did not provoke, instigate, or 

participate willingly in the violence; and (3) had a reasonable fear 

of death or great bodily harm. When a claim of self-defense is 

raised and finds support in the evidence, the State has the burden 

of negating at least one of the necessary elements. If a defendant 

is convicted despite his claim of self-defense, this Court will 

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

was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. In any 

event, a mutual combatant, whether or not the initial aggressor, 

must declare an armistice before he or she may claim selfdefense. The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency 

of evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same as the 

standard for any sufficiency of the evidence claim. We neither 

reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. If 

there is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the 

conclusion of the trier of fact, then the verdict will not be 

disturbed.

Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800–01 (Ind. 2002) (internal citations omitted).

 

3 We note that the State asserts that Bass did not argue below that he acted in self-defense and has therefore 

waived his appellate challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut his self-defense claim. While Bass 

did not specifically mention the term “self-defense” during trial, defense counsel argued the elements of a 

self-defense claim during his closing argument. Given our preference to decide cases on the merits, Pierce v. 

State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015) (providing that whenever possible, we prefer to resolve cases on the 

merits), we find defense counsel’s arguments sufficient to avoid waiver.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2304 | February 25, 2019 Page 6 of 6

[8] Bass concedes that he and Whitfield were involved in an altercation and does 

not challenge the trial court’s determination that during this altercation he 

knowingly or intentionally touched Whitfield in a rude or angry manner and 

that his actions caused Whitfield to suffer bodily injury, i.e., pain.4 Bass argues, 

however, that he acted in self-defense. 

[9] According to Bass, he (1) was in a place where he had a right to be, (2) did not 

provoke or initiate the altercation, and (3) reasonably feared bodily harm. 

Review of the record reveals, however, that Whitfield testified that Bass was the 

initial aggressor in the altercation, and the trial court explicitly indicated that it 

found this testimony to be credible. We therefore conclude that the State 

sufficiently rebutted Bass’s self-defense claim. Bass’s argument to the contrary 

effectively amounts to an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not 

do. Id. at 801.

[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur. 

 

4

 A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner that 

results in bodily injury commits Class A misdemeanor battery. See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c) & (d). “‘Bodily 

injury’ means any impairment of physical condition, including physical pain.” Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-29.