Paul Jackson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Jul 01 2015, 8:52 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Jul 01 2015, 8:52 am
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
Lisa M. Johnson Gregory F. Zoeller
Brownsburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Jonathan R. Sichtermann
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Paul Jackson, July 1, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1412-CR-549
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Grant W. Hawkins,
Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff
Trial Court Case No.
49G05-1205-FA-030702
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Paul Jackson (“Jackson”) was convicted in Marion Superior Court of Class B
felony aggravated battery. Jackson appeals his conviction and argues that the
State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1412-CR-549 | July 1, 2015 Page 1 of 6
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On or about April 27, 2012, Andre Holt and his nephew, Carlton Holt, visited
the Sunset Strip Bar in Indianapolis to celebrate Carlton’s birthday. They both
consumed several alcoholic beverages, and Carlton vomited while they were
inside the bar.
[4] At approximately 2:00 a.m., Andre walked up to the bar, and as he did so, he
bumped into Jackson’s friend, James Bailey. Andre and Bailey engaged in a
heated discussion, and Jackson also became involved in the argument. Security
was called over to the bar, and a security guard briefly spoke with Andre.
[5] A few minutes later, Andre and Carlton left the bar and returned to Andre’s van
in the parking lot. Jackson and his friends walked outside to the parking lot
immediately thereafter. Although Andre did not notice him, Jackson walked
over to the area near Andre’s van. Jackson did not observe anything
threatening, and he returned to his own vehicle.
[6] After pulling his van out of the parking space, Andre drove toward Jackson’s
car. Andre saw something “shiny” in Jackson’s hand and realized it was a gun.
Tr. pp. 43-44. Jackson approached the passenger side of the van where Carlton
was sitting. Andre stopped his van and said to Jackson, “I see the gun in your
hand, n----r, you don’t have to shoot.” Tr. p. 57.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1412-CR-549 | July 1, 2015 Page 2 of 6
[7] As Andre turned his head away from Jackson intending to pull away from the
parking lot, Jackson shot him in the neck. At the same time, one of Jackson’s
friends sprayed mace on Carlton. Andre was unable to move after being shot,
and Carlton jumped into his lap to drive the van away from Jackson.
[8] Carlton drove the van to the gas station across the street where he called 911.
The gunshot resulted in injury to Andre’s spinal cord. Andre endured months of
physical therapy before he was able to walk. Tr. p. 48.
[9] On May 11, 2012, Jackson was charged with Class A felony attempted murder
and Class B felony aggravated battery. A jury trial was held in February 2014,
and the jury found Jackson not guilty of attempted murder. However, the jury
could not reach a verdict on the aggravated battery charge.
[10] Jackson later decided to waive jury trial for the aggravated battery charge, and a
bench trial was held on September 22, 2014. The trial court found Jackson
guilty of Class B felony aggravated battery and sentenced Jackson to ten years
with four years suspended to probation. Jackson now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[11] Jackson argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his
claim of self-defense. “The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency
of evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same as the standard for any
sufficiency of the evidence claim.” Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind.
2000). We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the
witnesses. Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012). We view all
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1412-CR-549 | July 1, 2015 Page 3 of 6
evidence—even if conflicting—and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a
light most favorable to the conviction. Id. We affirm if substantial evidence of
probative value supports each element of the crime from which a reasonable
trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Id.
[12] Jackson does not claim that the State failed to prove that he committed
aggravated battery1 but argues that his actions were justified as self-defense. A
valid claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.
Coleman v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1160, 1165 (Ind. 2011). “A person is justified in
using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person . . . from
what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.”
Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c).
[13] To prevail on a self-defense claim, the defendant must show that (s)he (1) was
in a place where (s)he had a right to be; (2) acted without fault; and (3) was in
reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm. Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d
274, 277 (Ind. 2003). The State bears the burden of disproving at least one of
these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 801
(Ind. 2002). The State may meet this burden by rebutting the defense directly,
1
On the date Jackson committed this offense, Indiana Code section 35-42-2-1.5 provided:
A person who knowingly or intentionally inflicts injury on a person that creates a
substantial risk of death or causes:
(1) serious permanent disfigurement;
(2) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ;
or
(3) the loss of a fetus;
commits aggravated battery, a Class B felony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1412-CR-549 | July 1, 2015 Page 4 of 6
by affirmatively showing the person did not act in self-defense or by relying
upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief. Hood v. State, 877 N.E.2d 492, 497
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Whether the State has met its burden is a
question of fact for the factfinder. Id. If a person is convicted despite his claim
of self-defense, we will 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.
[14] At trial, the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Jackson’s claim that he
had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. Jackson left the bar just
after Andre and Carlton. He then walked over to the area near Andre’s van.
Jackson did not observe anything threatening, and he returned to his own
vehicle. While leaving the parking lot, Andre drove his van toward Jackson’s
vehicle and saw a gun in Jackson’s hand.
[15] Andre spoke to Jackson and told him not to shoot. Jackson was standing close
to the front passenger side of the van when he shot Andre in the neck. The only
evidence to support Jackson’s claim that he feared Andre had a gun is his own
self-serving testimony. Moreover, Andre testified that he did not have a gun,
and the responding police officers did not find a gun in Andre’s van. Jackson’s
decision to leave the bar immediately after Andre and his close proximity to
Andre’s van also belies his claim that he feared for his safety.
[16] For all of these reasons, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence
to rebut Jackson’s claim of self-defense. His argument to the contrary is simply
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1412-CR-549 | July 1, 2015 Page 5 of 6
a request to reweigh the evidence and the credibility of the witness, which our
court will not do. See Bailey, 979 N.E.2d at 135.
[17] We therefore affirm Jackson’s conviction for Class B felony aggravated battery.
May, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1412-CR-549 | July 1, 2015 Page 6 of 6