Joe Bass v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Feb 25 2019, 9:36 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral
CLERK
estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Taylor C. Byrley
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Joe Bass, February 25, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2304
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Clayton Graham,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
The Honorable Anne Flannelly,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G07-1805-CM-16962
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2304 | February 25, 2019 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Joe Bass was convicted of Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily
injury after he initiated and participated in a physical altercation with his
nephew. Bass challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his
conviction, arguing that the State failed to rebut his claim that he acted in self-
defense. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On May 26, 2018, Trelen Whitfield was sitting in his great-grandmother’s living
room watching television when Bass entered the home. Bass is Whitfield’s
great-uncle1 and lived in Whitfield’s great-grandmother’s home. It appeared to
Whitfield that Bass had been drinking. Bass approached Whitfield, “sort of
went off on” Whitfield accusing Whitfield of asking him to sell drugs. 2 Tr. p. 8.
Bass appeared angry when he approached Whitfield. He “grabbed” Whitfield
by the shirt, “pulled [him] up out [of] the chair,” and slapped him before
pushing Whitfield “up against the wall” and hitting him “two more times.” Tr.
pp. 8–9. Bass’s actions caused Whitfield to feel pain. Whitfield was eventually
able to leave the home.
1
While Whitfield refers to Bass as his uncle, the record demonstrates that Bass is actually Whitfield’s great-
uncle.
2
Whitfield denies ever asking Bass to sell drugs for him.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2304 | February 25, 2019 Page 2 of 6
[3] Whitfield’s mother Lashawnda Hinton arrived at the home a short time after
Whitfield left. Hinton called the police and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Officer Paul Bellows was dispatched to the home. Bass, however, left the home
before Officer Bellows arrived.
[4] Hinton called police and Officer Bellows was dispatched to the home a second
time after Bass returned to the home. When Officer Bellows arrived, Bass was
“pacing back and forth in the living room, and he was yelling and screaming.”
Tr. p. 25. Once Bass calmed down, he admitted “Yes, I put my hands on
[Whitfield’s] face.” Tr. p. 27. At some point, Whitfield returned to the home.
Officer Bellows spoke to Bass, Hinton, and Whitfield before placing Bass under
arrest.
[5] On May 27, 2018, the State charged Bass with two counts of Class A
misdemeanor battery and one count of Class B misdemeanor disorderly
conduct. The trial court conducted a bench trial on August 29, 2018. At trial,
Whitfield was asked if at any point he had gotten in Bass’s face or made any
contact with Bass. Whitfield responded “Never. I never even got up out [of]
my seat.” Tr. p. 14. Following the conclusion of the State’s evidence, the trial
court dismissed the battery charge that related to Hinton. The trial continued
on the remaining battery and disorderly conduct charges. Bass then testified
that he started arguing with Whitfield because Whitfield had “been
disrespecting” him. Tr. p. 34. He claimed that during the argument, Whitfield
stood up, bumped him, and “started to get in [his] face.” Tr. p. 34. He
testified that he then “just grabbed [Whitfield] and pushed him out [of his] way
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2304 | February 25, 2019 Page 3 of 6
and told him to get away from me.” Tr. p. 34. Bass, however, denied striking
Whitfield. During closing argument, defense counsel stated the following:
Your Honor, the State has failed to meet their burden of proving
my client’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What we have here
is a family disagreement that got out of hand. All we have is
evidence of battery.… You heard [Bass testify] that he was
approached in an aggressive, rude, insolent manner by
[Whitfield] and that he responded by using the most intrusive --
less intrusive means necessary. He was inside the house that he
lives in with his mother, with her consent, and he simply, with
the intent of de-escalating the situation, took him by his collar,
after being bumped in the chest, and removed [Whitfield] from
the home. You heard testimony that there is no bruising, no
marks, no bleeding, no physical evidence.… There simply just
isn’t enough here to prove my client’s guilt, and that’s why he
should be found not guilty as to Count II, battery resulting in
bodily injury, and not guilty of Count III, disorderly conduct.
The State has failed to meet their burden of proving either of
these beyond a reasonable doubt.
Tr. pp. 37–38.
[6] The trial court found Bass guilty of both Class A misdemeanor battery resulting
in bodily injury and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. In making this
finding, the trial court explicitly stated that it found “that Trelen Whitfield was
credible.” Tr. p. 38. The trial court merged the conviction for disorderly
conduct into the battery conviction, noting that “the facts used to prove Count
III are really so close to the same facts as proving Count II.” Tr. p. 39. The
trial court sentenced Bass to 365 days in the Marion County Jail, with credit for
time served and the remaining portion suspended to probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2304 | February 25, 2019 Page 4 of 6
Discussion and Decision
[7] Bass challenges the sufficiency of the evidence contending that the State failed
to rebut his claim of self-defense.3
A valid claim of defense of oneself or another person is legal
justification for an otherwise criminal act. In order to prevail on
such a claim, the defendant must show that 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. 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. If a defendant
is convicted despite his 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. In any
event, a mutual combatant, whether or not the initial aggressor,
must declare an armistice before he or she may claim 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. We neither
reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. If
there is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the
conclusion of the trier of fact, then the verdict will not be
disturbed.
Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800–01 (Ind. 2002) (internal citations omitted).
3
We note that the State asserts that Bass did not argue below that he acted in self-defense and has therefore
waived his appellate challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut his self-defense claim. While Bass
did not specifically mention the term “self-defense” during trial, defense counsel argued the elements of a
self-defense claim during his closing argument. Given our preference to decide cases on the merits, Pierce v.
State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015) (providing that whenever possible, we prefer to resolve cases on the
merits), we find defense counsel’s arguments sufficient to avoid waiver.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2304 | February 25, 2019 Page 5 of 6
[8] Bass concedes that he and Whitfield were involved in an altercation and does
not challenge the trial court’s determination that during this altercation he
knowingly or intentionally touched Whitfield in a rude or angry manner and
that his actions caused Whitfield to suffer bodily injury, i.e., pain.4 Bass argues,
however, that he acted in self-defense.
[9] According to Bass, he (1) was in a place where he had a right to be, (2) did not
provoke or initiate the altercation, and (3) reasonably feared bodily harm.
Review of the record reveals, however, that Whitfield testified that Bass was the
initial aggressor in the altercation, and the trial court explicitly indicated that it
found this testimony to be credible. We therefore conclude that the State
sufficiently rebutted Bass’s self-defense claim. Bass’s argument to the contrary
effectively amounts to an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not
do. Id. at 801.
[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.
4
A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner that
results in bodily injury commits Class A misdemeanor battery. See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c) & (d). “‘Bodily
injury’ means any impairment of physical condition, including physical pain.” Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-29.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2304 | February 25, 2019 Page 6 of 6