Tyler Burton v. State of Indiana ( 2013 )

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 Dec 31 2013, 9:38 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
LAURA M. TAYLOR GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ANDREW FALK
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
TYLER BURTON, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A05-1306-CR-269
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Shatrese M. Flowers, Master Commissioner
Cause No. 49F24-1301-FD-3940
December 31, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CRONE, Judge
Case Summary
Tyler Burton appeals his conviction for class D felony battery resulting in bodily
injury on a child,1 arguing that the State failed to disprove his self-defense claim. “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.” Wilson v.
State, 770 N.E.2d 799, (Ind. 2002). “We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the
credibility of witnesses.” Id. We will affirm if “there is sufficient evidence of probative
value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact.” Id.
To convict Burton of battery resulting in bodily injury on a child, the State was
required to prove that Burton was at least eighteen years old and knowingly or intentionally
touched a person who was less than fourteen years of age in a rude, insolent, or angry manner
that resulted in bodily injury. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(2)(B). At trial, Burton conceded that
he committed battery resulting in bodily injury on a child but claimed that he acted in self-
defense. A claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Ind.
Code § 35-41-3-2. 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. Id. “To prevail on a claim of self-defense, the defendant
must present evidence that he: (1) was in a place 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.” Tharpe v. State, 955 N.E.2d 836, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans.
1
Both Burton and the State mistakenly indicate that he was convicted of class C felony battery.
2
denied. “Once a defendant claims self-defense, the State must disprove, beyond a reasonable
doubt, at least one element of self-defense. The State may meet its burden by either rebutting
the defense directly or relying on the sufficiency of evidence in its case-in-chief.” Carroll v.
State, 744 N.E.2d 432, 433-34 (Ind. 2001).
Here, the State produced sufficient evidence to rebut Burton’s claim of self-defense.
The evidence most favorable to the conviction shows that thirteen-year-old Logan Hasseld
was walking on the sidewalk near his home. A maroon car sped by him going faster than
cars normally drove on that road. Some of the occupants gave Logan the middle finger. The
car suddenly stopped, its tires squealing. The car drove quickly backward and stopped.
Burton exited the car, walked aggressively toward Logan, and began angrily yelling at him.
Logan continued to walk toward his home. Logan turned around as Burton approached him,
and Burton punched Logan on the side of his face. Logan fell to the ground. Burton jumped
on top of him, held him down, and punched him eight to ten times, causing a large knot on
Logan’s forehead. Burton also hit him on the sides of his face and his ribs.
Logan’s father, David Hasseld, was in the Hasseld yard and heard yelling. He saw
Burton punch Logan, who fell to the ground. He saw Burton jump on Logan and start hitting
him. David ran toward them, and Burton got up and ran to the car and got in. The car sped
away. Logan was crying and in pain and went inside his house. David had previously given
Logan brass knuckles, which were in Logan’s pocket before the battery. Logan did not take
the brass knuckles out of his pocket. When Logan was inside he realized that they were
missing. David found them lying in the grass near the location of the battery.
3
Burton testified that he got out of the car and had a conversation with Logan. Burton
was walking back toward the car when Logan said something. Burton turned around, Logan
swung at him with the brass knuckles. Burton blocked the punch and wrestled Logan to the
ground. Burton’s friend, Logan Townsend, gave testimony consistent with Burton’s.
The evidence as to who started the fight was conflicting. In such instances, “[i]t is the
function of the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in testimony and to determine the weight of
the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.” Maxwell v. State, 731 N.E.2d 459, 462
(Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. Burton’s argument is an invitation to reweigh the
evidence and judge witness credibility, which we may not do. Therefore, we affirm his
conviction.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and NAJAM, J., concur.
4