Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Dec 14 2015, 8:30 am
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 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Patricia Caress McMath Gregory F. Zoeller
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Larry D. Allen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christopher Smith, December 14, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1504-CR-167
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court.
State of Indiana, The Honorable David Hooper,
Magistrate.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 49F08-1406-CM-27687
Darden, Senior Judge
Statement of the Case
[1] Christopher Smith appeals his conviction of battery resulting in bodily injury, a
Class A misdemeanor. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(1)(A) (2012). We affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-167 | December 14, 2015 Page 1 of 7
Issue
[2] Smith raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the State submitted
sufficient evidence to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt Smith’s claim of self-
defense.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Andy Watkins lived with his sister and Smith in Indianapolis. On May 17,
2014, Watkins came home from work, and Smith, along with Max Smith
(Smith’s cousin), Dexter McCann, and William Perry were outside. Watkins
went into the house, and Smith, Max, and McCann followed him. Watkins
owed McCann some money and went to his room with McCann to retrieve it.
[4] Watkins paid McCann. At that point, Max entered Watkins’ room, cursed at
Watkins, and argued with him. Smith came into the room to intervene, but he
also argued with Watkins. Smith accused Watkins of not paying his fair share
of the bills. After further harsh words, Watkins told both Smith and Max to
leave his room. Watkins slammed the bedroom door in their faces.
[5] Later on, Watkins left his room and walked toward the front door, where Smith
was standing nearby. Smith continued to curse Watkins and said Watkins “was
not going to do anything.” Tr. p. 8. As Watkins approached the front door, he
remembered he left his keys in his room. When Watkins turned around to get
his keys, Smith struck him from behind, in the back of the head.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-167 | December 14, 2015 Page 2 of 7
[6] Watkins turned around and confronted Smith. As the two men fought, they
struggled into an adjoining room. Max joined them and repeatedly struck
Watkins. When Watkins turned to Max, Smith grabbed him from behind.
Watkins backed Smith into a window and pushed his head through the glass.
Then, as Watkins tried to leave the house, he fell to the floor and Smith got on
top of him. Watkins felt pain to his head and noticed that he had blood on his
shoulder. Someone pulled Smith off of Watkins, and at that point, Watkins
saw that Smith was wearing what Watkins described as brass knuckles on his
hand. Smith admitted at trial, “I had no reason to be scared of [Watkins.]” Id.
at 44. Smith left with Max, McCann, and Perry.
[7] The police were called. Watkins later sought medical attention and needed five
stitches on his upper lip. In addition, Smith’s sudden attack, from behind,
resulted in a bloody abrasion on the back of Watkins’ head, and Watkins
developed migraines.
[8] The State charged Smith with battery resulting in bodily injury. The case was
tried to the bench. At the end of the trial, the court stated:
I reviewed some case law on self-defense, um, you can’t use
more force that [sic] reasonable under the circumstances or the
right is extinguished. State’s Exhibit Five is very compelling to
the Court. It’s obvious there was a fight and when you look at
some of these pictures I can see hitting back and that being okay.
I do note that the defendant was wearing a ring that day. There’s
an allegation of brass knuckles. Whether it was brass knuckles or
a right [sic] that inflicted the wound on State’s Exhibit—this head
wound with blood, um, I find that that was more force that [sic]
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-167 | December 14, 2015 Page 3 of 7
reasonably necessary when you look at what happened in this
particular fight. So I am entering a judgment of guilty.
[9] Id. at 60. The court imposed a one-year suspended sentence, and this appeal
followed.
Discussion and Decision
[10] Smith does not dispute that he battered Watkins and inflicted bodily injury on
him. Instead, he argues that the State failed to rebut his claim that he battered
Watkins in self-defense.
[11] “A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to
protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to
be the imminent use of unlawful force.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c) (2013). “No
person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for
protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.” Id. A
person is not justified in using force if “the person provokes unlawful action by
another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person.” Ind.
Code § 35-41-3-2(g).
[12] To prevail on a claim of self-defense under Indiana Code section 35-41-3-2, a
defendant must have: (1) acted without fault; (2) been in a place where he or
she had a right to be; and (3) been in reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily
harm. Weedman v. State, 21 N.E.3d 873, 891-92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.
denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-167 | December 14, 2015 Page 4 of 7
[13] When a claim of self-defense is raised and finds support in the evidence, the
State has 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 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. Cole v. State, 28 N.E.3d 1126, 1137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
[14] On appeal, 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. Bryant v. State, 984 N.E.2d 240, 250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013),
trans. denied. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the
witnesses. Id. We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences drawn from the evidence that support the verdict. Id. If the
defendant is convicted despite a claim of self-defense, this Court 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.
[15] The evidence most favorable to the judgment shows that Smith was the initial
aggressor because, from behind, he struck first by hitting Watkins in the back of
the head. Smith argues that the trial court concluded as a matter of law that
Smith was not the aggressor because the court considered whether Smith used
excessive force during the struggle. We do not agree with Smith’s
interpretation of the court’s statement. The court focused on State’s Exhibit 5,
which showed the bloody abrasion on the back of Watkins’ head, and stated
that “hitting back,” apparently by Watkins, was “okay.” Tr. p. 60. This was a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-167 | December 14, 2015 Page 5 of 7
bench trial, and we presume the judge knows the law and considers the
evidence properly before the court in reaching a decision. Hinesley v. State, 999
N.E.2d 975, 987 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
[16] Smith also claims, “It is not clear who swung and hit first.” Appellant’s Br. p.
6. Watkins unequivocally testified that Smith struck first, hitting him from
behind in the back of the head. Smith’s claim is a request to reweigh the
evidence, which our standard of review forbids. The State demonstrated that
Smith, from behind, struck first and, having provoked the fight, was not
justified in using force. See Cole, 28 N.E.3d at 1137 (State disproved self-defense
beyond a reasonable doubt because defendant instigated the fight and willingly
participated).
[17] Alternatively, the State’s evidence further disproved Smith’s claim of self-
defense because Smith conceded on cross-examination that he “had no reason
to be scared of [Watkins.]” Tr. p. 44. Furthermore, his cousin, Max was
present, and they outnumbered Watkins. Before attacking Watkins, Smith said
that Watkins “was not going to do anything.” Tr. p. 8. A finder of fact could
reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith did not have any
fear or apprehension of bodily harm. See Cole, 28 N.E.3d at 1137 (thus, the
State further met its burden of rebutting self-defense because defendant
admitted that he was not afraid of the victim). The State provided sufficient
evidence to rebut Smith’s claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-167 | December 14, 2015 Page 6 of 7
Conclusion
[18] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[19] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-167 | December 14, 2015 Page 7 of 7