Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01

- 1604

- JV

- 857 | November 22, 2016 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.
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Christopher L. Clerc Columbus, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Katherine Modesitt Cooper Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

M.P. , Appellant

- Respondent

, v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff

. November 22, 2016 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 03A01

- 1604

- JV

- 857 Appeal from the Bartholomew Circuit Court The Honorable Stephen R. Heimann, Judge The Honorable Heather Mollo, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 03C01

- 1508

- JD

- 4144

Robb , Judge .Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01

- 1604

- JV

- 857 | November 22, 2016 Page 2 of 6



# Case Summary and Issue
[1] The juvenile court adjudicated M.P. a delinquent child for committing battery resulting in bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. M.P. appeals his adjudication and raises one issue for our review , which we restate as : whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self

- defense. Conc luding the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut M.P.’s assertion he acted in self

- defense, we affirm his delinquency adjudication. 

# Facts and Procedural History
[2] On April 28, 2015, S.G. went to Taco Bell during lunch to socialize with friends. M.P. and I.J. also went to Taco Bell for lunch. S.G. purchased a drink and went outside to the picnic tables. After learning certain information from a friend, S.G. became upset and threw his drink in the direction of the trash can, near where M.P. was standi ng. The drink exploded causing soda to spill on M.P.’s clothing, angering M.P.

[3] M.P. placed his belongings on the ground, approached S.G., and struck him three or four times in the face with a closed fist. M.P. then picked S.G. up and slammed him to the ground. S.G. did not fight back and appeared to be “in shock.” Transcript at 33. S.G. sustained a bloody nose, abrasions to the side of his body, and pain and swelling to his previously

- injured foot. Following the fight, M.P. and I.J. returned to schoo l while S.G. went into the restaurant to call his mother.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01

- 1604

- JV

- 857 | November 22, 2016 Page 3 of 6

[4] The State alleged M.P. was a delinquent child for committing battery resulting in bodily injury and disorderly conduct. At the fact

- finding hearing, M.P. admitted to striking S.G. in the face and s lamming him to the ground; however, he alleg ed he acted in self

- defense. M.P. claimed S.G. walked towards him and I.J. with his arm drawn back and fist clenched, and swung his arm at a drink sitting on a table near them, causing it to fly in M.P.’s direction. At the conclusion of the fact

- finding hearing, the juvenile court took the matte r under advisement, but ultimately found M.P. a delinquent child for committing battery resulting in bodily injury. M.P. now appeals his delinquency adjudication. 

# Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review
[5] M.P. contends there is insufficient evidence to support his battery conviction because the evidence supports a finding he acted in self

- defense. When this court reviews a claim of insufficient evidence regarding a ju venile delinquency adjudication , we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness c redibility, and we only consider the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the judgment. B.R. v. State , 823 N.E.2d 301, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the judgment. G.N. v. State , 833 N.E.2d 1071, 1075 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). The standard for reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut aCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01

- 1604

- JV

- 857 | November 22, 2016 Page 4 of 6

claim of self

- defense is the same standard applied to any sufficiency of the evidence claim. Wallace v. State , 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 2000).



## II. Self

- Defense
[6] To adjudicate M.P. a delinquent child for committing battery resulting in bodily injury as a Class A misdemeanor, the State needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally touche d another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, resulting in bodily injury to any other person. Ind. Code § § 35

- 42

- 2

- 1 (b)(1),

- (c) (2014)

.
[7] M.P. challenges his battery adjudication by asserting he acted in self

- defense. A valid claim of self

- defense is a legal justification to an otherwise criminal act. Wallace , 725 N.E.2d at 840. Our self

- defense statute states in relevant part: A person is justified in using reasonable force against any othe r 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)

. The amount of force used to protect oneself must be proportionate to the urgency of the s ituation. Hollowell v. State , 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

[8] For a successful self

- defense claim, M.P. must show that 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 grea t bodily harm. Wallace , 725 N.E.2d at 840. The State has the burden of disproving at least one of the elements of self

- defense beyond aCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01

- 1604

- JV

- 857 | November 22, 2016 Page 5 of 6

reasonable doubt. Hood v. State , 877 N.E.2d 492, 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied

. The State may meet its bur den “by rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self

- defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief.” Id.

[9] Here , the State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate M.P. did not act without fault. M.P. asserts the evidence demonstrates S.G. approached M.P. with his arm drawn back and fist clenched, justifying his use of force against S.G. However, this argument essentially asks that we assess witness credibility and reweigh the evidence in his favor, which is the role of the fact

- finder, not the role of this court. Wright v. State , 828 N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind. 2005). The evidence favorable to the judgment demonstrates that S.G. spilled soda on to M.P.’s clothing. Thereafter, M.P. reacted by grabbing S.G., punching him in the face multiple times , and slamming him to the ground

. The juvenile court considered M.P.’s testimony S.G. approached him in a threatening manner with his fists clenched but ultimately rejected it, which it had the right to do. See Wallace , 725 N.E.2d at 840 (providing that a trier of fact has the right to rejec t a defendant’ s testimony supporting a claim of self

- defense in light of evidence to the contrary). Thus, M.P.’s actions are more accurately characterized as retaliation, rather than self

- defense.

[10] Further, M.P.’s use of force was not proportionate to the urgency of the situation. “Where a person has used more force than is reasonably necessary to repel an attack, the right of self

- defense is extinguished, and the ultimate result is that the intended victim then becomes the perpetrator.” Geralds v. State , 647Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01

- 1604

- JV

- 857 | November 22, 2016 Page 6 of 6

N.E.2d 369, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied

. Even if we accepted M.P.’s argument he was justified in using force to defend himself, it is clear his response went beyond what was necessary or appropriate. At the fact

- finding hearing, S.G. tes tified when M.P. struck him, “I put my hands up. I just stood there.” Tr. at 11. Further, I.J. testified S.G. was “in shock, he didn’t really do anything.” Id. at 33. Given S.G.’s passive reaction to M.P.’s actions, it is clear M.P.’s use of force wen t beyond what would have been “reasonably necessary.” Geralds , 647 N.E.2d at 373. 

# Conclusion
[11] The State presented sufficient evidence to rebut M.P.’s claim that he acted in self

- defense, and we therefore affirm M.P.’s delinquency adjudication

.
[12] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur

.