Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-627 | February 22, 2016 Page 1 of 5

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

Sean P. Hilgendorf

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Karl M. Scharnberg

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

David Cobb,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 22, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

71A03-1506-CR-627

Appeal from the St. Joseph 

Superior Court

The Honorable Elizabeth C. 

Hurley, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

71D08-1407-FC-130

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-627 | February 22, 2016 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] David Cobb (“Cobb”) appeals his conviction for Battery, as a Class C felony.1 

We affirm.

Issue

[2] Cobb presents a sole issue for review: whether the evidence supporting the 

conviction is insufficient because the State failed to negate Cobb’s claim of selfdefense.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In June of 2014, Percy and Valarie Doggett were living with Cobb in a South 

Bend residence. The Doggetts purchased a window air conditioning unit. 

During the installation process, Percy retrieved a power strip from Cobb’s 

room. When Cobb returned and found the power strip missing, he began 

pounding on the Doggetts’ bedroom door and cursing. Eventually, Cobb 

stormed out of the house.

[4] Valarie became concerned that Cobb might take their DVD player and she told 

Percy to retrieve it from the living room. While Percy was kneeling in front of 

the television unhooking the DVD player, Cobb came back into the house. 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-627 | February 22, 2016 Page 3 of 5

Cobb punched Percy in the face. Percy fell and Cobb began kicking him. 

Valarie, who had observed Cobb strike Percy, ran into the bedroom and called 

9-1-1.

[5] When police arrived, Percy initially rejected medical attention. However, by 

the next day he was in severe pain and he went to a hospital. There, it was 

discovered that Percy had a cracked rib, a collapsed lung, two broken facial 

bones, and a broken nose. After surgery, Percy spent a few days in the hospital 

recuperating and missed nearly one month of work.

[6] On July 8, 2014, Cobb was charged with Battery. On April 21, 2015, a jury 

found Cobb guilty as charged. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment. 

This appeal ensued. 

Discussion and Decision

[7] Cobb contends that the State’s evidence fell short of disproving his claim of selfdefense. To support his argument, he points to his own testimony that Percy 

swung at him first in the living room, that Percy had twice struck him during

the dispute over the power strip, and that Percy had struck him a week earlier –

claims contradicted by the Doggetts’ testimony.

[8] To convict Cobb of Battery, as a Class C felony, as charged, the State was 

required to show that he knowingly touched Percy in a rude, insolent, or angry 

manner, resulting in serious bodily injury to Percy. I.C. § 35-42-2-1; App. at 21. 

When reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-627 | February 22, 2016 Page 4 of 5

evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, but will consider only the 

probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. 

State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We will affirm the conviction unless no 

reasonable trier of fact could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Id.

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

Birdsong v. State, 685 N.E.2d 42, 45 (Ind. 1997). “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(c).

[10] When a defendant raises a claim of self-defense, he is required to show three 

facts: (1) he was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) he acted without 

fault; and (3) he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Wallace v. 

State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 2000). The defendant’s belief must be 

reasonable and in good faith and his “reaction to that belief must be reasonable 

based upon the surrounding circumstances under which the events have 

occurred.” Geralds v. State, 647 N.E.2d 369, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).

[11] Once a defendant claims self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving 

at least one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt for the defendant’s 

claim to fail. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind. 1999). The State may 

meet this burden by rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the 

defendant did not act in self-defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-627 | February 22, 2016 Page 5 of 5

of its evidence in chief. Id. Whether the State has met its burden is a question 

of fact for the jury. Id. Self-defense is generally unavailable to a defendant who 

is the initial aggressor. Id.

[12] The evidence negating Cobb’s claim of self-defense is as follows. Valarie and 

Percy testified that a verbal disagreement ensued when Cobb discovered the 

power strip was missing, but they each denied that Percy struck Cobb. Percy 

testified that he was kneeling when Cobb came up from behind him and struck 

him. When Percy fell to the ground, he could feel Cobb kicking him. He 

“blacked out” at some point. (Tr. at 73.) The State presented evidence that 

Cobb was the initial aggressor and continued to attack Percy even as he lay on 

the floor. Accordingly, the State presented sufficient evidence from which the 

jury could conclude that Cobb did not act in self-defense.

[13] Affirmed. 

Vaidik, C.J. and Crone, J., concur.