Jazzmen Bails v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 12, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-761
• 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 Dec 12 2018, 9:58 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 Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Evan Matthew Comer Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jazzmen Bails, December 12, 2018 Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-761 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Clayton A. Appellee-Respondent. Graham, Judge The Honorable Steven J. Rubick, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No. 49G07-1706-CM-23153

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-761 | December 12, 2018 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] On June 18, 2017, Jazzmen Bails went to the home of Denise Fugett and

punched her in the eye, knocking her unconscious, after Bails said she received

calls from Fugett and Fugett’s daughters threatening her life and the lives of her

children. As a result of the altercation, Bails was charged with Class A

misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. The trial court found Bails

guilty as charged. Bails contends that the State failed to produce sufficient

evidence to rebut her self-defense claim. Because we disagree, we affirm. 1

Facts and Procedural History [2] On the evening of June 18, 2017, Bails left her residence and traveled to

Fugett’s residence after receiving voicemails and calls from Fugett and Fugett’s

daughters threatening her life and the lives of her children, after Bails posted

information relating to Fugett’s husband’s criminal history on Facebook. Bails

texted Fugett that she was coming to Fugett’s residence to “beat [Fugett’s a**]

and [her] daughter’s a[**].” Tr. Vol. II p. 27.

[3] Upon arriving at Fugett’s residence, Bails began yelling at Fugett and her

daughters, attempting to coax them from inside the residence. While Bails

continued to yell outside, Fugett called the police. At approximately 9:44 p.m.,

1 This case was set for an oral argument on November 15, 2018, at North Central High School in Indianapolis. However, due to inclement weather the oral argument was cancelled. While we believe that we can resolve the matter without rescheduling, we sincerely thank both parties and the school for their willingness to participate.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-761 | December 12, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officers Scott Charleswood and John

Henderson arrived at Fugett’s residence. Fugett came out to meet the officers

on her front porch. Officer Charleswood observed Bails standing near a car

yelling in an angry and aggressive tone at Fugett and Fugett’s daughters. Bails

pushed her way onto the porch without answering Officer Charleswood’s

inquiry into what the problem was. At this point, Fugett’s two daughters

stepped in front of Fugett to shield her from Bails as Bails began throwing

punches, and Fugett attempted to punch back. At some point, Bails landed a

punch which knocked Fugett unconscious.

[4] On June 22, 2017, the State charged Bails with one count of Class A

misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. Following a bench trial held on

March 8, 2018, the trial court found Bails guilty as charged and sentenced her

to 365 days of incarceration, with sixty days executed and the rest suspended to

probation.

Discussion and Decision [5] Bails contends that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to rebut her

self-defense claim. “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). When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the

probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the trial court’s

decision. Tharpe v. State, 955 N.E.2d 836, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-761 | December 12, 2018 Page 3 of 6 It is the factfinder’s role, not ours, to weigh the evidence and assess witness

credibility to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support a

conviction. Id. To preserve this structure, when we are confronted with

conflicting evidence, we must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s

ruling. Id. “We affirm a conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find

the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. “It is

therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis

of innocence; rather, the evidence is sufficient if an inference reasonably may be

drawn from it to support the trial court’s decision.” Id.

[6] Self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Bryant v. State,

984 N.E.2d 240, 250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. To prevail on a self-

defense claim, the defendant must establish that she (1) was in a place where

she 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. “Reasonable fear” requires both a subjective belief

that death or great bodily harm will occur and an objective belief such that a

reasonable person under the circumstances would hold that same belief of

harm. Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342, 349 (Ind. 2013). A defendant,

however, is not justified in using force if that person “has entered into combat

with another person or 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 actions.”

Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2. When a defendant claims self-defense, the State must

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-761 | December 12, 2018 Page 4 of 6 rebut at least one element of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt by

presenting additional evidence or relying on the evidence in its case-in-chief.

Tharpe, 955 N.E.2d at 844–45.

[7] The State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Bails’s self-defense claim. First,

Bails had no right to be at Fugett’s residence: Fugett never invited Bails to the

residence and, in fact, called Bails’s godmother to have someone come remove

Bails from the residence. Moreover, Bails was the initial aggressor and

participated willingly in the fighting. Officer Charleswood only observed

aggressive behavior from Bails. Bails refused to tell the officer what the problem

was, charged through a group of people trying to stop her, and began throwing

punches at Fugett and Fugett’s daughters. Fugett did not throw the first punch

but, rather, hid behind her daughters as they shielded her from Bails’s punches.

Finally, while Bails might have genuinely believed she was going to be killed or

suffer great bodily injury, that belief was not reasonable under the

circumstances. A reasonable person receiving threatening voicemails and

fearing for her life would not leave the safety of her own home and travel to the

residence of the person making those threats. Bails even admits that in

“hindsight, it certainly may not have been the correct decision under all the

circumstances.” Appellant’s Br. p. 9. Additionally, two police officers had

arrived on the scene prior to the fight. When asked by officers what the problem

was, a reasonable person would have sought police protection instead of

running onto the porch towards the person she feared was going to cause her

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-761 | December 12, 2018 Page 5 of 6 grave harm. Bails has failed to establish that the State produced insufficient

evidence to rebut her claim of self-defense.

[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-761 | December 12, 2018 Page 6 of 6