Marcus Lloyd v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
ON REHEARING
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 12 2019, 9:49 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
Valerie K. Boots Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Megan Shipley Attorney General of Indiana
Marion County Public Defender Agency George P. Sherman
– Appellate Division Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Marcus Lloyd, September 12, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2649
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David J. Certo,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G12-1804-CM-13965
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Marcus Lloyd (“Lloyd”) has filed a petition for rehearing, which we grant for
the limited purpose of correcting our memorandum decision.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 18A-CR-2649 | September 12, 2019 Page 1 of 2
[2] In his petition, Lloyd correctly observes that our memorandum decision
incorrectly stated that Lloyd had to prove “reasonable fear of death or serious
bodily harm.” Slip op. at *2 (quoting Simpson v. State, 915 N.E.2d 511, 514 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied). A defendant is only required to prove that
element in a case involving deadly force. When a case does not involve deadly
force, a defendant claiming self-defense must only show that he was protecting
himself from what he “reasonably believe[d] to be the imminent use of unlawful
force.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c); Dixson v. State, 22 N.E.3d 836, 839 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014), trans. denied. And in our opinion, we observed that “a reasonable
person would not fear death or great bodily harm in the presence of uniformed
officers that were stopping the fight.” Slip op. at 2.
[3] However, the State negated Lloyd’s claim of self-defense by proving that he
willingly participated in the fight and refused to withdraw from the fight when
ordered to do so by police officers. Id. For this reason, we affirm our
memorandum decision in all other respects.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 18A-CR-2649 | September 12, 2019 Page 2 of 2