Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 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

Laura R. Anderson

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Travis Allen,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 16, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1609-CR-1982

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Allan W. Reid, 

Commissioner

Trial Court Cause No.

49G16-1606-CM-24839

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Travis D. Allen appeals his conviction for class A misdemeanor domestic 

battery, following a bench trial. Allen claims that the State failed to present 

sufficient evidence to rebut his self-defense claim. We disagree and therefore 

affirm his conviction. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 27, 2016, Allen and his girlfriend, Rachel Hardy, had a barbeque party 

in the pool area of their apartment complex. The couple were in a romantic 

relationship, had been living together, and had two children together. A verbal 

altercation occurred when Hardy objected to Allen offering food to two females 

who were walking by the barbecue. The situation escalated when the couple 

returned to their apartment, at which time Allen attempted to choke Hardy

“two or three times.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 10. Hardy called the police. The officer who 

arrived at the scene talked with both Hardy and Allen, but no arrest was made 

at that time. 

[3] After an hour or so, Allen started “talking crazy” and attacked Hardy by 

choking her. Id. at 11. Shortly thereafter, Allen attacked Hardy again. She tried 

to get away from Allen, but he grabbed her arm, causing her to fall to the 

ground and scratch her elbow. Several of the neighbors heard the altercation,

came over to the apartment, and intervened. The neighbors told Allen, “leave 

her alone, get off her, you can’t be doing that to her and stuff.” Id. at 13. The 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 3 of 6

neighbors then attacked Allen, causing a knot on his head and swelling of his

eye. Hardy called the police a second time. 

[4] Officer Christopher Mills of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department 

responded to the scene. Officer Mills observed that Hardy was upset and 

complained of pain in her elbow. According to Officer Mills, Hardy had “an 

abrasion on her left elbow that appeared fresh.” Id. at 27. Officer Mills also 

observed that Allen’s left eye was swollen. Allen told Officer Mills that he 

received the injury to his eye when he was “jumped by some males in the 

apartment complex.” Id. at 28, 47. 

[5] The State charged Allen with two counts of class A misdemeanor domestic 

battery and two counts of class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily 

injury. At trial, Allen claimed that Hardy attacked him and that he acted in selfdefense. The State dismissed one count of domestic battery and one count of 

battery. The court found Allen guilty of the remaining two charges, merged the 

class A misdemeanor battery into the class A misdemeanor domestic battery, 

and entered judgment of conviction on the domestic battery verdict. The trial 

court imposed a one-year sentence. Allen now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] To prove that Allen committed domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor, the 

State was required to show that he knowingly or intentionally touched Hardy, a 

person with whom he had a common child, in a rude, insolent, or angry 

manner that resulted in bodily injury. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a). The State 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 4 of 6

alleged that Allen committed domestic battery against Hardy by grabbing her 

arm and pulling her to the ground, resulting in pain, swelling, and/or bruising. 

Allen claims that he acted in self-defense and that the State failed to rebut this

claim with sufficient evidence.

[7] The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to rebut a 

self-defense claim is the same as the standard for any sufficiency of the evidence 

claim. Kimbrough v. State, 911 N.E.2d 621, 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). We 

neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Jackson 

v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 (Ind. 2010). We consider only the probative 

evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom that support the conviction, and 

we consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. 

Stephenson v. State, 53 N.E.3d 557, 560 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). 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. Kimbrough, 911 N.E.2d at 635.

[8] A valid self-defense claim is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. 

Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). A person is justified in using 

reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person 

from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful 

force. Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2. To prevail on such a claim, the defendant must 

show that he was in a place where he had a right to be, acted without fault, and 

“was protecting himself from what he reasonably believed to be the imminent 

use of unlawful force.” Dixson v. State, 22 N.E.3d 836, 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 5 of 6

trans. denied (2015). An initial aggressor or a mutual combatant, whether or not 

the initial aggressor, must withdraw from the encounter and communicate the 

intent to do so to the other person, before he may claim self-defense. Wilson v. 

State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 801 (Ind. 2002). 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Id at 800. The State 

can rebut the defendant’s self-defense claim by relying on the evidence of its 

case-in-chief. Carroll v. State, 744 N.E.2d 432, 434 (Ind. 2001).

[9] Allen notes that he was in a place where he had a right to be and claims that he 

was not the instigator of the encounter. He maintains that it is far more likely 

from the evidence that Hardy was the aggressor and caused him to protect 

himself. He points to the verbal altercation that occurred earlier in the day and 

describes Hardy as being even more upset when she found an empty bottle of 

alcohol in the kitchen sink. He contends that Hardy struck him with the empty 

bottle, causing injury to his nose and eye.

[10] However, the evidence most favorable to the trial court's ruling showed that

Allen initiated the physical confrontation by attacking Hardy on two or three 

separate occasions. On one occasion, she attempted to walk away from Allen 

when he grabbed her arm, causing her to fall and suffer an abrasion to her 

elbow. Officer Mills confirmed the presence of the abrasion on Hardy’s elbow

and testified that the injury appeared fresh when he arrived on the scene. Hardy 

testified that she did not hit Allen or strike him with an empty bottle. Both 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 6 of 6

Hardy and Officer Mills testified that Allen’s swollen eye occurred when 

neighbors in the apartment complex attacked him in Hardy’s defense.

[11] The factfinder was not required to credit Allen’s self-serving version of events. 

In essence, Allen’s argument is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence, 

which we will not do. Even by Allen’s own account, he and Hardy were 

engaged in a mutual altercation that escalated without any attempt by Allen to 

withdraw from the encounter. Based upon the record, we conclude that the 

State presented probative evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could 

have found that Allen did not validly act in self-defense and that he was guilty 

of domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor. Therefore, we affirm Allen’s 

conviction.

[12] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Barnes, J., concur.