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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

BARBARA J. SIMMONS GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

CHANDRA K. HEIN

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

DONTE CARTER, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 49A02-1301-CR-10

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, Judge

The Honorable Stanley Kroh, Master Commissioner

Cause No. 49G04-1208-CM-59931

July 24, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

DARDEN, Senior Judge
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Donte Carter appeals his conviction of battery on a law enforcement officer, a 

Class A misdemeanor. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1 (2012). We affirm. 

ISSUE

Carter raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the State provided sufficient 

evidence to negate Carter’s claim of self-defense.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 28, 2012, Carter was incarcerated in the Marion County Jail. Deputy 

Shawn Middleton of the Marion County Sheriff’s Department was told to move Carter to 

another section of the jail. 

Middleton approached Carter with three other deputies. Middleton told Carter to 

gather his personal items, but he refused. Next, as Middleton turned his head, Carter 

punched him in the face. Several other deputies grabbed Carter and put him on the 

ground. Carter continued to struggle, so Middleton tased him. The deputies were then 

able to put Carter in handcuffs. 

The State charged Carter with battery on a law enforcement officer. After a bench 

trial, wherein several deputies testified that Carter, unprovoked, punched Middleton in 

the face, the court determined he was guilty as charged. The court declined to enter a 

sentence because Carter was already serving a lengthy sentence in the custody of the 

Indiana Department of Correction. This appeal followed.
3

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Carter does not dispute that the State proved all of the elements of the offense of 

battery upon a law enforcement officer. Instead, he argues that he acted in self-defense. 

A valid claim of defense of oneself or another person is legal justification for an 

otherwise criminal act. Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2 (2012). 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. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 

800 (Ind. 2002). The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same as the standard for any sufficiency of the 

evidence claim. Id. at 801. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of 

the witnesses. Joslyn v. State, 942 N.E.2d 809, 811 (Ind. 2011). We consider only the 

probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence that support the 

judgment. Id. If a defendant is convicted despite a claim of self-defense, we reverse only 

if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a 

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

To prevail on a claim of self-defense, the defendant must present evidence that he: 

(1) was in a place 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. 

Tharpe v. State, 955 N.E.2d 836, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. 

In this case, the evidence most favorable to the judgment establishes that Carter hit 

Middleton in response to Middleton’s instruction to get his personal items. Thus, he 
4

provoked, instigated, or participated willingly in the violence. Carter’s assertion that the 

deputies attacked him first is a request to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. 

Consequently, the State presented sufficient evidence to negate Carter’s claim of selfdefense. See id. at 845 (the State rebutted Tharpe’s claim of self-defense because the 

evidence most favorable to the judgment established that Tharpe shot first at the police 

officer). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Affirmed.

BAKER, J., and MAY, J., concur.