Charles Carlos Chatman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMO RANDUM DECISION FILED
Mar 10 2017, 9:20 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
precedent or cited before any court except for the Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. O’Connor Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Richard C. Webster
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Charles C. Chatman, March 10, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1606-CR-1205
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court.
The Honorable Amy J. Barbar,
State of Indiana, Magistrate.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 49G02-1512-F5-45981
Barteau, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1205 | March 10, 2017 Page 1 of 7
Statement of the Case
[1] Charles Chatman appeals his conviction of battery by means of a deadly
1
weapon, a Level 5 felony. We affirm.
Issue
[2] The sole issue Chatman raises for our review is whether the State failed to
disprove beyond a reasonable doubt his self-defense claim.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Raymond Vandivier (Ray) owned a combination liquor store and bar (bar)
located on a corner in Indianapolis. Because the bar was in an area that had
high incidents of crime, Ray kept a baseball bat in the bar and carried a
concealed handgun, for which he was licensed. Ray’s son, Vincent, often
worked at the bar. The bar had a security camera surveillance system. See
State’s Ex. 4.
[4] In the early evening, on December 24, 2015, Ray was working in the bar’s
office and Vincent was working in the bar area. Chatman was walking along
the sidewalk in front of the bar, asking bar customers for money or cigarettes.
Vincent noticed Chatman. Believing he was panhandling, Vincent went outside
to tell Chatman to stop. Vincent was holding a vapor cigarette in his hand.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(b)(1), (f)(2) (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1205 | March 10, 2017 Page 2 of 7
[5] Chatman was standing on the sidewalk, leaning against the exterior wall.
When Vincent began speaking to Chatman, Chatman approached him. The
conversation took place in front of the bar entrance. Vincent asked Chatman
what he was doing. Chatman responded, “[O]h, just trying to find the holiday
spirit.” Tr. p. 19. Vincent told Chatman to leave the premises. Chatman
began to walk away. Vincent walked back to the bar entrance, but paused
outside, on the front step, to determine if Chatman actually was leaving the
premises. Vincent observed Chatman ask another bar customer for money or
cigarettes. Vincent, still standing just outside of the bar entrance, on the front
step, again asked Chatman to leave.
[6] Chatman approached Vincent. To create space between them, Vincent raised
both hands, touched Chatman’s chest lightly, and gently pushed Chatman.
Chatman said, “[D]on’t touch me.” Id. at 23. Vincent placed the hand holding
the vapor cigarette on his hip. Chatman asked, “[A]re you going to shoot me?”
Id. at 24. Vincent replied, “I don’t have to.” Id. Chatman grinned. Vincent
backed away from Chatman. Chatman removed a knife from his pocket,
lunged at Vincent, and stabbed him one time in the lower left abdomen. After
being stabbed, Vincent ran inside of the bar and yelled, “[K]nife!” Id. at 25.
[7] James West, a customer, was approaching the bar at the time Chatman stabbed
Vincent. James went inside the bar, encountered Vincent, then exited the bar
with a male employee. Vincent’s father, Ray, followed. The men confronted
Chatman, who, at the time, was standing in the street outside of the bar. Ray
was carrying the baseball bat he kept behind the bar counter.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1205 | March 10, 2017 Page 3 of 7
[8] Chatman held the group at bay with his knife. Ray dropped the baseball bat
and drew his handgun because he thought Chatman was moving toward him.
Chatman lowered the knife and began to move away from the group. Ray, not
realizing his son had been stabbed, holstered his handgun and started to pick up
the baseball bat. At that point, the other men told Ray his son had been
stabbed. Chatman turned and ran. Sometime during the altercation, the police
were called.
[9] Ray and the other men chased Chatman. They soon encountered the police,
and told the officers the direction in which Chatman ran. The police
apprehended Chatman, arrested and searched him, and found a knife in his
front pants pocket. The knife had a red substance on it that appeared to be
blood.
[10] Vincent was taken to the hospital. His wound was treated, and he received four
staples.
[11] Chatman was charged with battery by means of a deadly weapon, a Level 5
felony. He waived his right to a jury trial and was tried to the bench. Chatman
did not testify. At trial, he did not deny that he committed the act that resulted
in the battery charge. He did, however, raise the issue of self-defense. The trial
court found Chatman guilty as charged. Chatman appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[12] Chatman argues that his conviction should be reversed because the State failed
to disprove his claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. According to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1205 | March 10, 2017 Page 4 of 7
Chatman, the evidence at trial established he acted in self-defense, specifically,
he was in a public place where he had a right to be, and was never on the bar’s
property; he was not at fault and only acted to defend himself after first being
verbally harassed and physically pushed by Vincent; and he had a reasonable
fear of great bodily harm because Vincent reached for his waistband.
[13] The State argues that Chatman’s claim of self-defense fails because Vincent did
nothing to warrant being stabbed, other than to exchange words with Chatman;
Chatman clearly was the aggressor; and the evidence did not establish that
Chatman was in fear of great bodily harm. According to the State, Chatman
“provoked, instigated, and willingly participated in the violence.” Appellee’s
Br. p. 10.
[14] Based upon the facts most favorable to the conviction, we find that the State
presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have
found that Chatman did not act in self-defense.
[15] 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, 801 (Ind. 2002). 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, then the verdict will not be disturbed. Id. If a defendant is convicted
despite his claim of self-defense, this Court will reverse only if no reasonable
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1205 | March 10, 2017 Page 5 of 7
person could say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a reasonable
doubt. Id. at 800-01.
[16] A valid claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.
Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). A person is justified in using
reasonable force against another 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 (2013). 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. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800. An
initial aggressor or a mutual combatant, whether or not the initial aggressor,
must withdraw from the encounter and communicate the intent to do so to the
other person, before he may claim self-defense. Id. at 801. 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. Id. at 800. The State can
rebut the defendant’s claim of self-defense by relying on the evidence of its case-
in-chief. Carroll v. State, 744 N.E.2d 432, 434 (Ind. 2001).
[17] The bar’s security camera surveillance system captured footage of the encounter
between Vincent and Chatman. The footage was admitted into evidence as
State’s Ex. 4. Although Chatman was in a place where he had a right to be, the
evidence establishes that Chatman was the initial aggressor and did not retreat,
and that Chatman was not in fear of great bodily harm when he stabbed
Vincent. See State’s Ex. 4.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1205 | March 10, 2017 Page 6 of 7
[18] After Vincent twice told Chatman to stop panhandling, Chatman invaded
Vincent’s personal space such that Vincent had to raise his hands, lightly touch
Chatman’s chest, and gently push Chatman to create space between them.
Vincent did not reach for his waistband, but instead placed the hand that held
the vapor cigarette on his hip. Vincent backed away from Chatman, but
Chatman drew his knife, lunged at Vincent, and stabbed him. The momentum
from the lunge and the stabbing caused Chatman to step up on the front step
where Vincent stood. As Vincent ran into the bar for help, Chatman advanced
toward Vincent before turning to walk away.
[19] Chatman’s suggestion that these facts do not demonstrate he was the initial
aggressor, or that the facts demonstrate he was in fear of great bodily harm is
simply an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Wilson, 770
N.E.2d at 801. Ample evidence was provided to disprove Chatman’s claim of
self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
[20] For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
[21] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1205 | March 10, 2017 Page 7 of 7