Mahouton Dassi v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Aug 07 2015, 8:37 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 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. Burns Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Richard C. Webster
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Mahouton Dassi, August 7, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1501-CR-34
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Christina R.
Klineman, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff The Honorable Marshelle Broadwell,
Commissioner
Cause No. 49G17-1410-CM-47551
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-34 | August 7, 2015 Page 1 of 5
[1] Mahouton Dassi appeals his conviction for Battery Resulting in Bodily Injury, 1
a class A misdemeanor. Finding that the State presented sufficient evidence to
negate Dassi’s claim of self-defense, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On October 10, 2014, Dassi began to argue with his wife, Curisa Davis, after
she accused him of infidelity and told him that she wanted a divorce. The
argument escalated and Davis attempted to leave the apartment with her
children. At this point, Dassi grabbed Davis by her purse and pulled her back
into the apartment. Davis fell to the floor. Dassi then took Davis’s wallet, car
keys, and cell phone to prevent her from leaving.
[3] Davis then got up from the floor and ran towards the balcony, but Dassi
blocked her path and pushed Davis onto the couch. Dassi put his hands around
Davis’s neck and began to strangle her. Davis tried to yell for help but she
could not breathe and was beginning to lose consciousness. Dassi finally
released Davis after she managed to grab his groin. Davis again attempted to
flee the apartment, but Dassi blocked her path this time as well.
[4] Davis then grabbed a knife in an attempt to scare Dassi away from her. This
was to no avail as Dassi knocked the knife out of Davis’s hand and began
chasing her around the kitchen. Davis finally managed to exit the apartment
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-34 | August 7, 2015 Page 2 of 5
and run to the apartment of her neighbor, Claire Guzman. Davis’s ordeal was
not over, however, as Dassi managed to follow her into Guzman’s apartment.
Once inside, Dassi shoved Davis against the wall. Dassi then took Guzman’s
cell phone to prevent her from calling the police. Guzman repeatedly told
Dassi to leave her apartment and Dassi eventually left, which allowed Guzman
the opportunity to call the police.
[5] On October 14, 2014, the State charged Dassi with class A misdemeanor
battery. On January 8, 2015, following a bench trial, Dassi was found guilty as
charged. The trial court sentenced Dassi to 180 days imprisonment, fully
suspended to probation. Dassi now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[6] At trial, Dassi claimed that he acted in self-defense. He now argues that the
State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut this claim. When reviewing a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence
nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840
(Ind. 2000). We will affirm if there is sufficient evidence of probative value to
support the trier of fact’s conclusion. Id.
[7] Self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Id. Indiana
Code section 35-41-3-2(c) provides that “[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.” When a defendant raises a claim of self-defense, he is required to show:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-34 | August 7, 2015 Page 3 of 5
(1) that he was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) that he acted without
fault; and (3) that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Id.
“When self-defense is raised and finds support in the record, the State has the
burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements.” McEwen v. State, 695
N.E.2d 79, 90 (Ind. 1998).
[8] It is immediately apparent from the facts of this case that the State presented
sufficient evidence to rebut Dassi’s self-defense claim. Dassi’s own recitation of
the facts shows that he was the initial aggressor—grabbing Davis by her purse
and pulling her to the floor to prevent her from leaving. Appellant’s Br. p. 2.
An initial aggressor is not justified in using force unless he “withdraws from the
encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the
other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.”
I.C. § 35-41-3-2(g)(3). The evidence presented here paints no such picture.
[9] At trial, Davis testified that Dassi persistently battered her in a continuing effort
to prevent her from leaving the apartment as well as to prevent her from calling
the police. Tr. p. 12-24. This evidence clearly shows that Dassi did not act
without fault and allows for the reasonable inference that he had no fear of
death or great bodily harm. Davis also testified that the battery continued
inside Guzman’s apartment, showing that Dassi was not in a place where he
had a right to be. Tr. p. 23. Consequently, all of the elements that Dassi was
required to show to maintain his self-defense claim were sufficiently negated by
the State’s evidence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-34 | August 7, 2015 Page 4 of 5
[10] Dassi also testified at trial and, on appeal, he would prefer that we credit his
version of events, which he believes supports his self-defense claim. Appellant’s
Br. p. 3. However, it was for the trial court to weigh the conflicting evidence
and we refuse Dassi’s request to reweigh this evidence on appeal.
[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-34 | August 7, 2015 Page 5 of 5