Michael Prysock v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 20 2017, 8:02 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Barbara J. Simmons Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Matthew B. Mackenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael Prysock, January 20, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1605-CR-1141
v. Appeal from the Marion County
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David Hooper,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G08-1510-CM-37624
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-CR-1141 | January 20, 2017 Page 1 of 5
[1] Michael Prysock appeals his conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery
resulting in bodily injury. 1 He argues the State did not present sufficient
evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On October 21, 2015, Prysock was at his mother’s home in Indianapolis. His
mother’s best friend, Brandon Hayworth, entered the home, as he did on a
regular basis. Shortly after Hayworth arrived, Prysock “came storming out of
[Prysock’s] room, hollering and stuff and he just pushed [Hayworth] out of
nowhere with force and [Hayworth] went flying across [the] living room.” (Tr.
at 17.) Hayworth landed on the couch and complained of pain in his back and
chest.
[3] Hayworth called the police, who arrived shortly thereafter. Prysock admitted to
pushing Hayworth because Hayworth was “meddling in [his] business.” (Id. at
26.) On October 22, 2015, the State charged Prysock with Class A
misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. On May 2, 2016, the trial court
held a bench trial during which Prysock claimed he pushed Hayworth in self-
defense because Hayworth grabbed Prysock’s genitals. The trial court found
Prysock guilty as charged.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(d) (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-CR-1141 | January 20, 2017 Page 2 of 5
Discussion and Decision
[4] Our review of whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut a claim
of self-defense is the same as that of any sufficiency of evidence claim. Miller v.
State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 699 (Ind. 1999). We will not “reweigh the evidence or
assess the credibility of witnesses but look solely to the evidence most favorable
to the judgment with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Id.
“We will affirm a conviction where such evidence and reasonable inferences
constitute substantial evidence of probative value sufficient to support the
judgment.” Id.
[5] Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury occurs when a person
“knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry
manner” and that touching “results in bodily injury to any other person.” Ind.
Code § 35-42-2-1(c)-(d) (2014). “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). To prevail on a claim of self-defense, Prysock had
to show he: (1) was 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. See Brand v. State, 766 N.E.2d 772, 777 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)
(requirements of a self-defense claim), reh’g denied, trans. denied. The State has
the burden of rebutting a claim of self-defense, and to do so, it must negate at
least one of the three elements of self-defense. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-CR-1141 | January 20, 2017 Page 3 of 5
[6] Prysock admits he pushed Hayworth, but argues he did so in self-defense.
Prysock testified Hayworth “grabbed [him] in [his] private area,” (Tr. at 31),
and he pushed Hayworth in the chest “[b]ecause [Hayworth] grabbed [him.]”
(Id. at 32.) However, Hayworth testified Prysock “came storming out of
[Prysock’s] room, hollering and stuff and he just pushed [Hayworth] out of
nowhere with force and [Hayworth] went flying across [the] living room.” (Id.
at 17.) Additionally, the responding officer, Lieutenant Scott Evans, testified
that on the scene Prysock admitted to pushing Hayworth because Hayworth
“was meddling in [his] business.” (Id. at 26.) Prysock’s argument is an
invitation for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses,
which we cannot do. See Miller, 720 N.E.2d at 699 (appellate court does not
reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses). The trial court was not
required to believe Prysock’s testimony, and the testimony from Hayworth was
sufficient to disprove Prysock’s claim of self-defense. See, e.g., Wilson v. State,
770 N.E.2d 799, 801 (Ind. 2002) (conflicting evidence about whether defendant
was provoked permitted trier-of-fact to reject defendant’s claim of self-defense).
Conclusion
[7] Prysock asks us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses,
which we cannot do. The State presented sufficient evidence Prysock was not
acting in self-defense when he committed Class A misdemeanor battery
resulting in bodily injury. We affirm.
[8] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-CR-1141 | January 20, 2017 Page 4 of 5
Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-CR-1141 | January 20, 2017 Page 5 of 5