Bryan Joseph Benway v. State of Indiana (mem.dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Jul 20 2018, 6:28 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
Mark F. James Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Anderson, Agostino & Keller P.C. Attorney General of Indiana
South Bend, Indiana Lee M. Stoy, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Bryan Joseph Benway, July 20, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-66
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John M.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Marnocha, Judge
The Honorable Paul E. Singleton,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
71D02-1704-CM-1955
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-66 | July 20, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] In February of 2017, Bryan Benway went to the house he used to live in with
Sara Singleton to retrieve some of his belongings. When told his belongings
were no longer there, Benway pushed Singleton and punched her several times.
David Rosanski intervened, and Benway struck him in the face. The State
charged Benway with Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and Class B
misdemeanor battery. After a bench trial, the trial court found Benway guilty
as charged and sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of 361 days with 301
suspended. Benway contends that the State failed to rebut his claim that he
acted in self-defense. Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On February 11, 2017, Benway arrived unannounced at Singleton’s father’s
house in South Bend and let himself in the front door without permission.
Singleton and Benway had been in a relationship and lived together in the
house until Benway was incarcerated briefly, and Benway was returning for his
belongings. When Benway entered the house, Singleton and Rosanski were
sitting in the living room. Benway and Singleton began to argue when she told
him that none of his belongings were in the house. When Singleton asked
Benway to leave, he pushed her to the ground and punched her in the face and
head a “handful of times” with closed fists. Tr. Vol. I p. 12. Rosanski
intervened by pulling Benway from Singleton. Benway hit Rosanski in the face,
which split open his left eyebrow. Rosanski let go of Benway when Benway
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-66 | July 20, 2018 Page 2 of 5
said he was done fighting, and Benway attempted to attack Singleton again.
Rosanski restrained Benway again, and he finally left. Police who responded
observed multiple abrasions on Rosanski’s face and redness and swelling on
Singleton’s right cheek and a red mark on her head near her temple.
[3] On May 1, 2017, the State charged Benway with Class A misdemeanor
domestic battery and Class B misdemeanor battery. At trial on November 17,
2017, Benway testified that he had acted in self-defense, testimony the trial
court specifically found was not credible. The trial court found that for it to
accept Benway’s version of events, it would have to believe “some very unlikely
things that just based on common experience just [do not] happen.” Tr. Vol. I
p. 38. The trial court found Benway guilty as charged and, on December 12,
2017, sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of 361 days of incarceration with
301 suspended.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Benway contends that the State failed to rebut his claim that he acted in self-
defense.
When a defendant challenges the State’s sufficiency of the
evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense, the standard of review
remains the same as for any sufficiency of the evidence claim.
We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of
witnesses but look solely to the evidence most favorable to the
judgment with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.
We will affirm a conviction where such evidence and reasonable
inferences constitute substantial evidence of probative value
sufficient to support the judgment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-66 | July 20, 2018 Page 3 of 5
Self-defense is recognized as a valid justification for an otherwise
criminal act. When raised, a defendant must establish that he or
she was in a place where he or she had the right to be, acted
without fault, and was in reasonable fear or apprehension of
death or great bodily harm. Once a defendant claims self-
defense, the State bears the burden of disproving at least one of
these elements beyond a reasonable doubt for the defendant’s
claim to fail. The State may meet this burden by rebutting the
defense directly, by affirmatively showing the defendant did not
act in self-defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency of its
evidence in chief. Whether the State has met its burden is a
question of fact for the jury.
Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 699–700 (Ind. 1999) (citations omitted).
[5] In general, “[s]elf-defense […] is unavailable to a defendant who is the initial
aggressor[.]”1 Id. at 700. The evidence most favorable to the trial court’s
judgment indicates that Benway was the initial aggressor, with both Singleton
and Rosanski testifying that he was. Singleton testified that Benway first
pushed her and then started hitting her when she asked him to leave. Rosanski
testified that Benway let himself into the house, “started tripping out on
[Singleton,]” and “ended up getting on top of her and […] hitting her.” Tr. Vol.
II pp. 16, 17. Benway points to his testimony that Singleton attempted to slap
him first and that, when he tried to defend himself, he was attacked by
Rosanski and Singleton’s father’s girlfriend. The trial court, however,
1
Indiana Code section 35-41-3-2(g) provides, in part, that “a person is not justified in using force if [the
person is] the initial aggressor unless the person 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.” Benway does not claim, much less establish, that the altercation in this case fits within this scenario.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-66 | July 20, 2018 Page 4 of 5
specifically found Benway’s testimony to be incredible, which was its
prerogative. Benway’s argument is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh
the evidence, which we will not do.
[6] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-66 | July 20, 2018 Page 5 of 5