Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-414 | September 21, 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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Victoria L. Bailey

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

K.G.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

September 21, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1603-JV-414

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court, Juvenile Division

The Honorable Marilyn A. 

Moores, Judge

The Honorable Gary Chavers, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49D09-1508-JD-1446

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-414 | September 21, 2016 Page 2 of 6

[1] Following a bench trial, K.G. was adjudicated a delinquent child for 

committing what would be Level 3 felony aggravated battery if committed by 

an adult. K.G. now appeals, contending that the State presented insufficient 

evidence to rebut her claim of self-defense.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On June 16, 2015, K.M. was in a car with several of her friends heading to meet 

up with more friends at a nearby apartment complex. Along the way, K.M. 

and her friends saw D.L. walking down the street. There was some simmering 

tension between K.M. and D.L. because a mutual friend had told K.M. that 

D.L. wanted to fight K.M. K.M. and her friends pulled over and got out, and 

K.M. asked D.L. if she wanted to fight her. D.L. said she did not want to fight,

and K.M. and her friends returned to the car and prepared to leave. 

Meanwhile, D.L. called her best friend, fifteen-year-old K.G., and told her that 

K.M. and some boys had pulled up and were trying to fight her. K.G., who 

had been in a fight with K.M. the previous summer, told D.L. she was on her 

way. 

[4] After speaking with K.G., D.L. called one of K.M.’s friends out of the car. 

When he got out of the car, K.M. and the rest of the occupants followed. K.G., 

who lived very close by, then came running down the street. At that time, D.L. 

asked K.M. whether she wanted to fight her. D.L. kept “walking into” K.M., 

and D.L. had a “jaw steel quick link,” which is more commonly referred to as a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-414 | September 21, 2016 Page 3 of 6

carabiner and can be used as brass knuckles, in her hand. Transcript at 8, 56. 

K.G. pulled D.L. aside and took the carabiner from her, stating that D.L. could 

seriously hurt K.M. with it and consequently “get in some really big trouble”. 

Id. at 82. 

[5] D.L. and K.M. again squared off and continued arguing. Eventually, one of 

the boys who had arrived with K.M. pushed K.M. into D.L., and the girls

began fighting. Several of the bystanders, including K.G., recorded parts of the 

fight with their cell phones.1 At one point, K.G. got in the middle of the fight 

and kicked K.M. in the stomach. One of the boys dragged K.G. away while 

K.M. and D.L. continued to fight. K.G. then re-entered the fight and tried to 

separate the girls, all while still gripping the carabiner in her hand. As K.G. 

and D.L. backed away from K.M., D.L. spat at K.M. When K.M. then tried to 

walk toward D.L. and K.G., one of the boys grabbed her from behind and 

dragged her away. K.M. broke free and again walked toward K.G. and spat at 

her. In response, K.G. shouted “b*tch, you (indiscernible) f*cked up” and 

threw the carabiner at K.M.’s face, striking her in the left eye. Exhibit Volume, 

State’s Ex. 1. K.M. immediately fell to the ground, and as she lay there 

bleeding, K.G. repeatedly screamed “that b*tch just spit in my mother f*cking 

face” and spat twice in K.M.’s direction. Id. K.G. and D.L. then left together. 

 

1

Four such videos were placed into evidence at the fact-finding hearing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-414 | September 21, 2016 Page 4 of 6

K.M. was later transported to the hospital by ambulance, and despite 

undergoing two surgeries, she has been rendered virtually blind in her left eye. 

[6] As a result of these events, the State filed a petition alleging that K.G. was a 

delinquent child for committing acts that would be Level 3 felony aggravated 

battery and class B misdemeanor battery by bodily waste if committed by an 

adult. A fact-finding hearing was held on December 4 and 8, 2015, at which 

K.G. argued that she acted in self-defense. On January 7, 2016, the juvenile 

court entered a true finding as to the aggravated battery allegation and a not 

true finding as to the battery by bodily waste allegation. A dispositional hearing 

was held on February 3, 2016, and K.G. was placed on probation. K.G. now 

appeals.

Discussion

[7] On appeal, K.G. argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to rebut 

her self-defense claim. The standard for reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency 

of evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same standard used for any 

claim of insufficient evidence. Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 

2000). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. 

Id. If there is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of 

the trier of fact, the judgment will not be disturbed. Id. “A valid claim of selfdefense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.” Id.

[8] To prevail on her self-defense claim, K.G. must show that she: (1) was in a 

place where he had a right to be; (2) acted without fault; and (3) was in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-414 | September 21, 2016 Page 5 of 6

reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm. Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 

274, 277 (Ind. 2003); see also Ind. Code. § 35-41-3-2. A person who provokes, 

instigates, or participates willingly in the violence does not act without fault for 

the purposes of self-defense. Shoultz v. State, 995 N.E.2d 647, 660 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2013). Additionally, the degree of force used must be proportionate to the 

requirements of the situation, and a claim of self-defense will fail where a 

person has used more force than is reasonably necessary to repel an attack. 

Weedman v. State, 21 N.E.3d 873, 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. 

[9] When a self-defense claim is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State 

bears the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements. Wilson v. 

State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002). The State may meet its burden by 

offering evidence directly rebutting the defense, by affirmatively showing that 

the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by relying upon the sufficiency of 

the evidence from its case-in-chief. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind. 

1999). If a defendant is convicted despite a claim of self-defense, we will 

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

beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 801.

[10] K.G.’s arguments on appeal are nothing more than a request to reweigh the 

evidence, which we will not do on appeal. When D.L. called K.G. and told her 

that K.M. was trying to fight her, K.G. ran to the scene. When D.L. and K.M. 

started to fight, K.G. used her cell phone to record the fight until she chose to 

enter the fray herself and kicked K.M. in the stomach. When K.M. spat at her, 

K.G. retaliated by throwing the carabiner, which K.G. knew could seriously 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-414 | September 21, 2016 Page 6 of 6

injure someone, at K.M.’s face. As K.M. lay on the ground bleeding, K.G. 

continued to scream obscenities and spat twice in K.M.’s direction. This amply 

supports a finding that K.G. did not act without fault, and K.G.’s demeanor 

both before and after throwing the carabiner supports a finding that she acted 

out of rage, not fear. The evidence also supports a finding that K.G. used a 

disproportionate degree of force against K.M. Accordingly, the State presented 

sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that she did not act in 

self-defense.

[11] Judgment affirmed. 

[12] Bradford, J. and Pyle, J., concur.