M.P. v. State

Decision Date22 November 2016
Docket NumberNo. 03A01–1604–JV–857.,03A01–1604–JV–857.
Citation68 N.E.3d 623 (Table)
Parties M.P., Appellant–Respondent, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Christopher L. Clerc, Columbus, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Katherine Modesitt Cooper, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

ROBB, Judge.

Case Summary and Issue

[1] The juvenile court adjudicated M.P. a delinquent child for committing battery resulting in bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. M.P. appeals his adjudication and raises one issue for our review, which we restate as: whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. Concluding the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut M.P.'s assertion he acted in self-defense, we affirm his delinquency adjudication.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 28, 2015, S.G. went to Taco Bell during lunch to socialize with friends. M.P. and I.J. also went to Taco Bell for lunch. S.G. purchased a drink and went outside to the picnic tables. After learning certain information from a friend, S.G. became upset and threw his drink in the direction of the trash can, near where M.P. was standing. The drink exploded causing soda to spill on M.P.'s clothing, angering M.P.

[3] M.P. placed his belongings on the ground, approached S.G., and struck him three or four times in the face with a closed fist. M.P. then picked S.G. up and slammed him to the ground. S.G. did not fight back and appeared to be "in shock." Transcript at 33. S.G. sustained a bloody nose, abrasions to the side of his body, and pain and swelling to his previously-injured foot. Following the fight, M.P. and I.J. returned to school while S.G. went into the restaurant to call his mother.

[4] The State alleged M.P. was a delinquent child for committing battery resulting in bodily injury and disorderly conduct. At the fact-finding hearing, M.P. admitted to striking S.G. in the face and slamming him to the ground; however, he alleged he acted in self-defense. M.P. claimed S.G. walked towards him and I.J. with his arm drawn back and fist clenched, and swung his arm at a drink sitting on a table near them, causing it to fly in M.P.'s direction. At the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing, the juvenile court took the matter under advisement, but ultimately found M.P. a delinquent child for committing battery resulting in bodily injury. M.P. now appeals his delinquency adjudication.

Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review

[5] M.P. contends there is insufficient evidence to support his battery conviction because the evidence supports a finding he acted in self-defense. When this court reviews a claim of insufficient evidence regarding a juvenile delinquency adjudication, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, and we only consider the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the judgment. B.R. v. State, 823 N.E.2d 301, 306 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the judgment. G.N. v. State, 833 N.E.2d 1071, 1075 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). The standard for reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same standard applied to any sufficiency of the evidence claim. Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind.2000).

II. Self–Defense

[6] To adjudicate M.P. a delinquent child for committing battery resulting in bodily injury as a Class A misdemeanor, the State needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally touched another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, resulting in bodily injury to any other person. Ind.Code §§ 35–42–2–1(b)(1), -(c) (2014).

[7] M.P. challenges his battery adjudication by asserting he acted in self-defense. A valid claim of self-defense is a legal justification to an otherwise criminal act. Wallace, 725 N.E.2d at 840. Our self-defense statute states in relevant part:

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....

Ind.Code § 35–41–3–2(c). The amount of force used to protect oneself must be proportionate to the urgency of the situation. Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1021 (Ind.Ct.App.1999).

[8] For a successful self-defense claim, M.P. must show that 1) he was in a place where he had a right to be; 2) he acted without fault; and 3) he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Wallace, 725 N.E.2d at 840. The State has the burden of disproving at least one of the elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Hood v. State, 877 N.E.2d 492, 497 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied. The State may meet its 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." Id.

[9] Here, the State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate M.P. did not act without fault. M.P. asserts the evidence demonstrates S.G. approached M.P. with his arm drawn back and fist clenched, justifying his use of force against S.G. However, this argument essentially asks that we assess witness credibility and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT