Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2413 | March 31, 2020 Page 1 of 7

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

Michael C. Borschel

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jeremy Fager,

Appellant-Defendant,

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff

March 31, 2020 

Court of Appeals Case No. 

19A-CR-2413 

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court 

The Honorable Mark Stoner, 

Judge 

Trial Court Cause No.

49G06-1903-F3-10577 

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2413 | March 31, 2020 Page 2 of 7

[1] Jeremy Fager appeals his convictions of Level 5 battery resulting in serious 

bodily injury;1 Level 6 felony strangulation;2 and Class A misdemeanor 

domestic battery.

3

 Fager argues the State did not sufficiently rebut his claim of 

self-defense. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 16, 2019, Fager and P.S. went to several bars to celebrate St. 

Patrick’s Day. One of Fager’s friends drove the couple from bar to bar and 

eventually returned them to a residence in which Fager rented a room. After 

the friend drove away, Fager realized he had left his room key in the friend’s 

car. He texted the friend to come back, and Fager and P.S. sat down in the 

common living room of the residence. P.S. waited with Fager because her keys 

were in Fager’s locked room.

[3] While in the living room, Fager said to P.S., “Why are you being such a bitch?” 

(Tr. Vol. II at 44.) In response, P.S. went into the kitchen and sat near the 

backdoor “[b]ecause [she] could tell he was mad.” (Id. at 45.) Fager followed 

P.S. into the kitchen and asked her what she was doing. She told him, “I’m just 

going to sit out here and wait for [the friend] to get back with the keys so I can 

leave.” (Id.) Fager told P.S. that she needed to wait outside. P.S. refused, and 

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(g)(1).

2 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-9(c) (2017).

3 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1) (2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2413 | March 31, 2020 Page 3 of 7

Fager “pulled [her] up by [her] hair.” (Id.) Fager then started hitting P.S. on 

the side of her head with a closed fist. P.S. saw a knife next to a pizza box in 

the kitchen and grabbed it. Fager hit her again on the right side of her face, and 

P.S. fell on the ground. Fager began kicking P.S., and P.S. stabbed Fager with 

the knife. Fager then said, “This bitch stabbed me.” (Id. at 46.) P.S. attempted 

to crawl back into the living room while yelling for help. Fager came up behind 

P.S., got on her back, and started to strangle her. P.S. was able to get away 

from Fager and leave the residence. 

[4] P.S. tried to get help from nearby neighbors but was unsuccessful. She ran 

down the street to a bar called Club Paradise and the bouncer there called 911 

for her. The responding officer testified regarding P.S.’s condition following the 

altercation:

She was completely covered in blood. . . . Her hair was covered 

in blood. Her face was covered in blood. Her right eye was 

completely black and swollen shut. Her right ear was completely 

black and blue and swollen. Her – all of her clothing, from her 

shirt all the way down to her shoes, covered in blood, and her 

hands were mangled. It looked like several of her fingers were 

broken and bloody.

(Id. at 13.) An ambulance transported P.S. to the hospital where she was 

treated for an orbital fracture, lacerations and fractures to her fingers, and other 

bruising associated with strangulation. Fager suffered a cut on his finger that 

“wasn’t nothing [sic] worthy of transporting to a hospital. So they just treated it 

on site.” (Id. at 28.)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2413 | March 31, 2020 Page 4 of 7

[5] On March 20, 2019, the State charged Fager with Level 3 felony criminal 

confinement;4 Level 5 felony criminal confinement;5 Level 5 felony battery 

resulting in serious injury; Level 6 felony strangulation; Level 6 felony criminal 

confinement;6 Level 6 felony battery resulting in bodily injury;7 and Class A 

misdemeanor domestic battery. The trial court held a bench trial starting on 

July 25, 2019, and continued the trial to August 23, 2019, based on witness 

unavailability.

[6] At the end of the trial, the trial court found Fager guilty of Level 6 felony 

strangulation, Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury, Level 6 

felony battery resulting in bodily injury, and Class A misdemeanor domestic 

battery. The trial court merged the Level 5 and Level 6 felony battery 

convictions based on double jeopardy. On September 12, 2019, the trial court 

sentenced Fager to an aggregate sentence of eight years, with five executed, two 

years on work release, and one year on probation.

Discussion and Decision

[7] When considering the sufficiency of evidence, “a reviewing court does not 

reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses.” McHenry v. 

4 Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3(b)(2) (2014).

5 Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3(b)(1) (2014).

6 Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3(a) (2014).

7 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(e)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2413 | March 31, 2020 Page 5 of 7

State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). We must affirm “if the probative 

evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could have 

allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Fager argues the State did 

not present sufficient evidence that he committed the crimes for which he was 

convicted because, while he acknowledges that he engaged in a physical 

altercation with P.S., he contends he did so in self-defense after P.S. stabbed 

him.

[8] “To prevail on a claim of self-defense, a defendant must show he: (1) was in a 

place where 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.” Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002). “When a claim of 

self-defense is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State bears the 

burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements.” King v. State, 61 

N.E.3d 1275, 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. “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 of its 

evidence in chief.” Id. If a defendant is convicted despite his claim of selfdefense, 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. 

[9] A person is not justified in using force in self-defense when “the person has 

entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the 

person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2413 | March 31, 2020 Page 6 of 7

the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to 

continue unlawful action.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(g)(3). The parties dispute 

whether Fager negated his self-defense claim by provoking, instigating, or 

willingly participating in the altercation.

[10] Here, Fager instigated the physical altercation when he pulled P.S. up by her 

hair in the kitchen because she refused to wait outside. He punched her 

multiple times with a closed fist and began kicking her while she was on the 

floor before she stabbed him. Fager was the initial aggressor and at no time did 

he withdraw from combat or communicate his desire to do so. Fager’s 

alternate version of the facts is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence and 

judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do. See McHenry, 820 

N.E.2d at 126 (appellate court does not reweigh evidence or judge credibility of 

witnesses). The evidence was sufficient to rebut Fager’s claim of self-defense, 

and we accordingly affirm his convictions. See Huls v. State, 971 N.E.2d 739, 

744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (initial aggressor did not withdraw or communicate an 

intent to withdraw from physical confrontation, thus self-defense claim failed), 

trans. denied.

Conclusion

[11] The State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Fager’s self-defense claim 

because it presented testimony that Fager was the initial aggressor in the 

physical altercation with P.S. and did not withdraw or communicate his intent 

to withdraw from the altercation at any time. Accordingly, we affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2413 | March 31, 2020 Page 7 of 7

[12] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.