Willie Harrison v. State of Indiana ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
    Memorandum Decision shall not be
    regarded as precedent or cited before any            Dec 31 2014, 9:16 am
    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:
    MATTHEW D. ANGLEMEYER                          GREGORY F. ZOELLER
    Marion County Public Defender Agency           Attorney General of Indiana
    Appellate Division
    Indianapolis, Indiana                          MONIKA PREKOPA TALBOT
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    WILLIAM HACKL BRAINARD
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    WILLIE HARRISON,                               )
    )
    Appellant-Defendant,                    )
    )
    vs.                              )       No. 49A02-1406-CR-401
    )
    STATE OF INDIANA,                              )
    )
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                     )
    APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
    The Honorable Sheila A. Carlisle, Judge
    Cause No. 49G03-1401-FB-33
    December 31, 2014
    MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    BRADFORD, Judge
    CASE SUMMARY
    On the night of December 31, 2013, Roger Schultz was returning home when a car
    driven by Appellant-Defendant Willie Harrison attempted to pass on the right but
    “tapped” Schultz’s front fender when doing so. Both vehicles pulled into a parking lot,
    and Harrison’s passenger emerged from his car, started pulling pieces of the bug shield
    from Schultz’s truck and throwing them at the truck, and yelling at Schultz. Harrison
    brandished a gun and told Schultz that he would blow his head off. Schultz managed to
    back his truck into another parking lot, where Harrison grazed Schultz’s truck with his
    car. Schultz managed to temporarily evade Harrison and parked behind a building and
    got out of his truck to assess the damage. Shortly thereafter, Harrison ran his car into
    Schultz, pinning him between the car and the truck. Schultz’s left leg was severely
    injured and was amputated below the knee two days later. The trial court found Harrison
    guilty of Class B felony aggravated battery and sentenced him to fourteen years of
    incarceration to be followed by one year of work release. Harrison appeals, contending
    that the State failed to produce evidence sufficient to rebut his claim of self-defense. We
    affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    At approximately 10 p.m. on December 31, 2013, Schultz was driving home in his
    truck on I-465 in Indianapolis. Schultz exited at Washington Street and noticed a black
    car behind him rapidly switching lanes in order to pass other vehicles.          Once on
    Washington Street, the black car, driven by Harrison, attempted to pass Schultz on the
    2
    right, but “tapped” the front right fender of Schultz’s truck. Tr. p. 14. Schultz followed
    Harrison’s car to a nearby parking lot, intending to exchange information.
    In the parking lot, Harrison’s passenger, Kaliea Booker, exited Harrison’s car;
    started to tear pieces from the bug shield on Schultz’s car and throw them at the
    windshield; and yelled at Schulz, “you old m***********; learn to drive[.]” Tr. p. 16.
    Schultz stepped out of his truck and attempted to persuade Booker to stop what she was
    doing but soon noticed that Harrison was now outside. Harrison was holding a handgun
    and yelling at Booker to “Get the f*** out of the way.” Tr. p. 18. Harrison told Schultz
    that “he would blow [his] f****** head off.” Tr. p. 19. Schultz attempted to reenter his
    truck and succeeded on the third try, having been prevented twice from doing so by
    Booker. (Tr. 19-20). Schultz put his truck into reverse and “spun the vehicle into an
    empty parking lot[,]” at which point Harrison’s car “grazed” Schultz’s front bumper. Tr.
    p. 20.
    Schultz managed to “t[ake] off out of the parking lot and proceed approximately a
    block and a half, two blocks behind the old airport deli that is closed at this time.” Tr. p.
    21. Schultz exited his truck to survey the damage and, approximately thirty seconds
    later, Harrison drove into the parking lot at approximately forty miles per hour and struck
    Schultz, pinning him between Harrison’s car and Schultz’s truck. On January 2, 2014,
    Schultz’s left leg was amputated below the knee due to injuries sustained in the collision.
    On January 2, 2014, the State charged Harrison with Class B felony aggravated
    battery and amended the charge on March 27, 2014. At bench trial, Harrison testified
    that he followed Schultz in order to learn his license plate number and then intentionally
    3
    ran into Schultz because he believed Schultz was about to draw a firearm. On April 28,
    2014, the trial court found Harrison guilty as charged. On May 25, 2014, the trial court
    sentenced Harrison to fourteen years of incarceration followed by one year of work
    release.
    DISCUSSION AND DECISION
    Whether the State Produced Sufficient Evidence to
    Rebut Harrison’s Claim of Self-Defense
    Harrison contends that the State failed to rebut his claim that he ran into Schultz in
    self-defense. A valid claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal
    act. Birdsong v. State, 
    685 N.E.2d 42
    , 45 (Ind. 1997). The defense is defined in Indiana
    Code Section 35-41-3-2(a) (2009): “A person is justified in using reasonable force
    against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person
    reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.”
    When a person raises a claim of self-defense, he is required to show three facts:
    (1) he was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) he acted without fault; and (3) he had
    a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. Wallace v. State, 
    725 N.E.2d 837
    , 840
    (Ind. 2000). Once a person claims self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving
    at least one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Hood v. State, 
    877 N.E.2d 492
    ,
    497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. The State may meet this burden by rebutting the
    defense directly, by affirmatively showing the person did not act in self-defense, or by
    relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief. 
    Id.
     Whether the State has met its
    burden is a question of fact for the factfinder. 
    Id.
     The trier of fact is not precluded from
    4
    finding that a person used unreasonable force simply because the victim was the initial
    aggressor. Birdsong, 685 N.E.2d at 45.
    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 v. State, 
    770 N.E.2d 799
    , 800-01 (Ind. 2002). The standard on
    appellate review of 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. Id. at 801.
    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
    verdict will not be disturbed. Id.
    At the very least, the State produced enough evidence to rebut the claim that
    Harrison had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. According to Schultz’s
    testimony, Schultz was simply standing behind his truck surveying damage when
    Harrison ran into him with his car at approximately forty miles per hour. In other words,
    Schultz’s testimony does not indicate that he did anything that a reasonable person would
    consider life-threatening. Although Harrison points to his own testimony that he believed
    Schultz was about to draw a firearm, the trial court was under no obligation to credit this
    testimony and apparently did not. Harrison’s argument amounts to nothing more than an
    invitation to reweigh the evidence, one which we decline. The State produced sufficient
    evidence to rebut Harrison’s claim of self-defense.
    We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    NAJAM, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 49A02-1406-CR-401

Filed Date: 12/31/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021