Lauren Warman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 28, 2017
• Docket: 49A02-1612-CR-2762
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 08/28/2017, 10:03 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Deborah Markisohn Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana James B. Martin Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Lauren Warman, August 28, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1612-CR-2762 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Tom Hirschauer, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Pro Tempore Trial Court Cause No. 49G12-1607-CM-26741

Robb, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CR-2762 | August 28, 2017 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary and Issue [1] Following a bench trial, Lauren Warman was convicted of battery causing

bodily injury as a Class A misdemeanor. Warman appeals, raising the sole

issue of whether the evidence is sufficient to support her conviction.

Concluding the evidence is sufficient, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In early July 2016, Warman lived with her mother, Melissa Davenport, and

sister, S.W., in Warman’s home in Indianapolis. At 6:00 a.m. on July 12,

Warman entered S.W.’s room to use S.W.’s cell phone. Warman was upset

and explained to S.W. “she wanted to beat [Melissa] up or kill her . . . .”

Transcript, Volume 2 at 39. Nearly thirty minutes later, Warman approached

Melissa as Melissa went outside to her car and began screaming at her. Melissa

described Warman as “crazed.” Id. at 11. Warman returned to the home and

locked the door. Melissa needed to get into the home so she could gather her

materials for work and threatened to call police. Warman then exited the home

and began shoving and punching Melissa. Melissa responded by grabbing

Warman’s hair and striking her. Hearing the commotion, S.W. went

downstairs and observed the struggle. S.W. attempted to stop the fight and

Melissa stopped striking Warman. Warman did not stop, however, and

grabbed Melissa’s hair and threw her to the floor. S.W. again tried to end the

fight by pulling Warman off Melissa. When Warman resisted, S.W. grabbed a

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CR-2762 | August 28, 2017 Page 2 of 6 knife and began cutting Melissa’s hair to free her. Once S.W. prevailed,

Warman grabbed more hair. At some point, Melissa was able to call 911.

[3] At approximately 7:00 a.m., Officer Katie DeLeon with the Indianapolis

Metropolitan Police Department arrived at the home and heard the sounds of

females screaming inside the home. Warman, bleeding from the face, came to

the door and allowed Officer DeLeon inside. Officer DeLeon observed Melissa

was bleeding from the face and holding clumps of her hair in her hand. Officer

DeLeon also observed clumps of hair scattered on the home’s floor. Warman

was arrested.

[4] On July 12, 2016, the State charged Warman with battery causing bodily injury

as a Class A misdemeanor. At a bench trial, the State presented the testimony

of Melissa, S.W., and Officer DeLeon. Warman testified on her own behalf

and claimed self-defense. According to Warman, she approached Melissa

outside and Melissa attempted to strike her. Warman then retreated to the

home and shut the door. Warman then opened the door, Melissa “rushed” at

Warman, and the two began fighting. Id. at 83. S.W. then approached the

pair. Warman feared S.W. would get hit, so Warman grabbed Melissa’s hair

and held her down to the ground.

[5] Warman was found guilty as charged and the trial court entered judgment of

conviction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CR-2762 | August 28, 2017 Page 3 of 6 I. Sufficiency of the Evidence [6] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to support a criminal

conviction, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility.

Smart v. State, 40 N.E.3d 963, 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Rather, we consider

only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences

arising from such evidence. Id. We will affirm a conviction unless “no

reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (citation

omitted).

II. Self-Defense [7] Warman contends the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction because

the State failed to disprove her claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

We disagree.

[8] A valid claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.

Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002). To prevail on a claim of self-

defense, the defendant must show she: 1) was in a place she had a right to be, 2)

did not provoke, instigate, or willingly participate in the violence, and 3) had a

reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Id. Where, as here, the conduct

does not involve deadly force, the defendant claimant must only show that she

was protecting herself from what she reasonably believed to be the imminent

use of unlawful force. Dixson v. State, 22 N.E.3d 836, 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014),

trans. denied. “When a claim of self-defense is raised and finds support in the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CR-2762 | August 28, 2017 Page 4 of 6 evidence, the State has the burden of negating at least one of the necessary

elements.” Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800. Before she may claim self-defense, a

mutual combatant or initial aggressor must withdraw from the encounter and

communicate the intent to do so to the other person and the other person

nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action. Id. at 801; see

also Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(g)(3).

[9] The parties dispute whether Warman completely withdrew from the encounter.

Warman argues she did not provoke the fight. She claims Melissa initiated the

fight when she swung at her outside and Warman thereafter immediately

retreated inside and shut the door, and only after Melissa allegedly charged at

her did she willfully participate in the quarrel. Warman’s arguments are a

request for this court to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility,

which we will not do. Smart, 40 N.E.3d at 966.

[10] The evidence most favorable to the judgment establishes Warman stated to

S.W. she wanted to hurt Melissa just before the fight ensued. Melissa testified

Warman then approached her outside and began screaming in a “crazed”

manner. Tr., Vol. 2 at 11. Warman then returned to the home and locked

Melissa outside. After Melissa threatened to call the police, Warman opened

the door and attacked Melissa. The pair then exchanged blows and Warman

grabbed Melissa’s hair and threw her to the ground, and Warman held Melissa

to the ground despite S.W.’s attempts to free Melissa. A reasonable fact-finder

could find that Warman never completely withdrew from the encounter. We

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CR-2762 | August 28, 2017 Page 5 of 6 conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to negate Warman’s claim of

self-defense.

Conclusion [11] The State presented sufficient evidence to convict Warman of battery causing

bodily injury as a Class A misdemeanor. Accordingly, we affirm.

[12] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CR-2762 | August 28, 2017 Page 6 of 6