Gilbert Brown v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
Oct 26 2012, 9:30 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK
of the supreme court,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
BARBARA J. SIMMONS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
JAMES B. MARTIN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
GILBERT BROWN, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1204-CR-254
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable William Nelson, Judge
Cause No. 49F07-1007-CM-55658
October 26, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FRIEDLANDER, Judge
Following a bench trial, Gilbert Brown was convicted of two counts of Battery,1 both
as class A misdemeanors. Brown appeals and argues that the State presented insufficient
evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. We affirm.
On the evening of May 18, 2010, Darrell Heady, Jr., Sherry Jolliffe, Eric Wade, and
Mark Rawls, all employees of Marshall Investigations, were working together to repossess
Brown’s car for lack of payment. The vehicle was parked on a well-lit public street just
outside a Volunteers of America center where Brown was employed. As the group was
verifying the vehicle’s VIN number and preparing to tow it, Brown emerged from the
building and asked what they were doing. Heady identified himself and told Brown that his
car was being repossessed for nonpayment. Heady showed Brown his badge and
identification and attempted to present Brown with a lienholder affidavit for possession.
Defendant knocked the documents out of Heady’s hand and pushed him. Brown then lunged
toward Jolliffe, grabbed her chest, and pushed her. When Heady got in between Brown and
Jolliffe, Brown struck Heady numerous times in his chest. Brown also struck Heady in the
side of his face, knocking off and breaking his glasses. When Heady raised his arm to protect
himself, Brown grabbed his arm and flung it away, injuring Heady’s shoulder. Brown finally
retreated into the building after Wade sprayed him with mace. As a result of the altercation,
Heady suffered bruising on his chest and side, pain in his neck, and an injury to his rotator
cuff. Jolliffe sustained a scratch on her chest and a bump on her hip where she was pushed
against the car.
1
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-2-1 (West, Westlaw current with all 2012 legislation).
2
As a result of these events, the State charged Brown with two counts of class A
misdemeanor battery. A bench trial was held on March 5, 2012, and Brown was found guilty
as charged. Brown now appeals.
Brown’s sole argument on appeal is that the State presented insufficient evidence to
rebut his claim of self-defense. The standard for reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of
evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same standard used for any claim of
insufficient evidence. Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837 (Ind. 2000). 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 judgment will not be
disturbed. Id. “A valid claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal
act.” Id. at 840.
To prevail on a self-defense claim, Brown 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. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799(Ind. 2002); see also I.C. § 35-41-3-2 (West, Westlaw current with all 2012 legislation).
When a self-defense claim is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State bears the
burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799.
The State may meet its burden by offering evidence directly rebutting the defense, by
affirmatively showing that the defendant did not act in self- defense, or by simply relying
upon the sufficiency of the evidence from its case-in-chief. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696(Ind. 1999). If a defendant is convicted despite his claim of self-defense, we will reverse
only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated beyond a reasonable
3
doubt. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799.
In arguing that the State did not adequately rebut his claim of self-defense, Brown
relies upon his own self-serving testimony. Specifically, Brown contends that when he came
out of the building to investigate what was happening to his car, he was grabbed from behind
and only came into contact with Heady as he struggled to break free. Brown’s version of the
events is in direct conflict with Heady’s and Jolliffe’s testimony that Brown was the
aggressor in the incident. Heady testified that when he showed Brown his identification and
attempted to present him with a lienholder affidavit for possession, Brown knocked the
documents out of his hand and pushed him, and then lunged toward Jolliffe. When Heady
got between Brown and Jolliffe, Brown repeatedly struck Heady, breaking his glasses and
causing bruising to his chest and side and injury to his shoulder. Brown retreated only after
Wade sprayed him with mace. Additionally, Jolliffe testified that as Heady was attempting
to explain the situation to Brown, Brown came toward her, grabbed her chest, and tried to
push her away from the car. This evidence was sufficient to support Browns convictions and
to rebut his claim of self-defense. Brown’s argument to the contrary is simply a request for
this court to reweigh the evidence and credit his testimony rather than that of Heady and
Jolliffe, which we will not do on appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
BROWN, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
4