Jasmine McCoy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 17, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CR-2789
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any May 17 2019, 9:03 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kevin Wild Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Samantha M. Sumcad Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jasmine McCoy, May 17, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-2789 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven J. Rubick, Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G10-1712-CM-47916

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2789 | May 17, 2019 Page 1 of 4 Statement of the Case [1] Jasmine McCoy appeals her conviction for battery, as a Class A misdemeanor,

following a bench trial. McCoy raises a single issue for our review, namely,

whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut her defense of self-

defense. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On December 12, 2017, Luther Starks was working as a cashier at a Dollar

General store in Indianapolis. While Starks was checking McCoy out of the

store, McCoy “was exhibiting rude behavior” toward Starks, and in response

Starks refused “to double bag” some of the items McCoy was purchasing. Tr.

at 4. They then got into a “verbal argument” before one of Starks’ managers

sent him “to the back.” Id. at 5.

[3] As Starks was heading to the backroom, McCoy “came over . . . and was

bumping into [him]” and “essentially trying to fight” him. Id. Starks then

“decided to put her in a headlock” to avoid, he later testified under oath,

“further harm” from coming “to either” of them. Id.

[4] “[A]fter a minute” of having McCoy in a headlock, another man intervened,

Starks released McCoy, and the third party placed himself between McCoy and

Starks. Id. at 6. Nonetheless, McCoy “decided to mace” Starks at that point,

which caused Starks severe pain. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2789 | May 17, 2019 Page 2 of 4 [5] The State charged McCoy with battery as a Class A misdemeanor for her use of

pepper spray against Starks. At her ensuing bench trial, she asserted that she

had acted in self-defense. The trial court rejected her defense and found her

guilty. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [6] On appeal, McCoy argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to

rebut her claim of self-defense. Self-defense is a valid justification for an

otherwise criminal act. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 699 (Ind. 1999). A

defendant must establish that she was in a place where she had the right to be,

acted without fault, and was in reasonable fear or apprehension of death or

great bodily harm. Id. at 699-700. However, self-defense is unavailable to a

defendant who “provoke[s], instigate[s,] or participate[s] willingly in the

violence.” Brooks v. State, 683 N.E.2d 574, 577 (Ind. 1997).

[7] Once a defendant claims self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving

at least one of the elements of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Miller,

720 N.E.2d at 700. It may meet its burden by rebutting the defense directly, by

affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by relying on

the sufficiency of its evidence in chief. Id. Whether the State has met its burden

is a question for the trier of fact. Id.

[8] When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut her claim

of self-defense, the standard of review remains the same as for any sufficiency of

evidence claim. Id. at 699. We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2789 | May 17, 2019 Page 3 of 4 credibility of witnesses but look solely to the evidence most favorable to the

judgment with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. We will

affirm a conviction where such evidence and reasonable inferences are

substantial evidence of probative value sufficient to support the judgment. Id.

[9] The State readily presented sufficient evidence to negate McCoy’s claim of self-

defense. Starks testified that, after his manager had intervened at the cash

register and sent Starks to a back room, McCoy pursued him. He further

testified that, after he had released McCoy from the headlock and a third party

had positioned himself between Starks and McCoy, McCoy then pepper-

sprayed Starks by reaching around the third party. That testimony was

sufficient to show that McCoy provoked, instigated, or willingly participated in

the acts that precipitated the headlock, and it was also sufficient to show that, at

the time she pepper-sprayed Starks, McCoy was no longer in reasonable fear for

her own safety. McCoy’s argument on appeal is merely a request for this Court

to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. We affirm her conviction for

battery, as a Class A misdemeanor.

[10] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2789 | May 17, 2019 Page 4 of 4