Court Opinion

ID: 9860904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:35:57.673582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:51.522973
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. I accept the recitation of facts in the majority opinion; however, I do not agree with the conclusion of law applied to those facts.
The record clearly shows that appellant was in a place where he had a right to be, that the victim perpetrated an unprovoked attack upon him, that the victim was larger than appellant, that during the attack he continued to back away from the victim, and that appellant was struck several times by the victim. It is true that appellant produced a knife in order to ward off his larger assailant. However, despite the presence of the knife, the assailant charged into the appellant with great force. This collision resulted in the fatal knife wound.
I fully recognize that when a claim of self-defense has been raised, the question *547of whether the State has negated that claim of self-defense is a question for the trier of fact. Spinks v. State (1982), Ind., 487 N.E.2d 968. Further, a conviction in spite of a claim of self-defense can be reversed on appeal only if no reasonable person can say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. Spinks, supra; Lilly v. State (1987), Ind., 506 N.E.2d 23.
In the case at bar, I find nothing in the record nor in the recitation of the facts by the majority which negates appellant's claim of self-defense. I would therefore reverse this case for lack of evidence of guilt and order appellant discharged.