Michael Prysock v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 20, 2017
• Docket: 49A02-1605-CR-1141
• 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 Jan 20 2017, 8:02 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Barbara J. Simmons Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. Mackenzie Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael Prysock, January 20, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1605-CR-1141 v. Appeal from the Marion County Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable David Hooper, Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G08-1510-CM-37624

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-CR-1141 | January 20, 2017 Page 1 of 5 [1] Michael Prysock appeals his conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery

resulting in bodily injury. 1 He argues the State did not present sufficient

evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On October 21, 2015, Prysock was at his mother’s home in Indianapolis. His

mother’s best friend, Brandon Hayworth, entered the home, as he did on a

regular basis. Shortly after Hayworth arrived, Prysock “came storming out of

[Prysock’s] room, hollering and stuff and he just pushed [Hayworth] out of

nowhere with force and [Hayworth] went flying across [the] living room.” (Tr.

at 17.) Hayworth landed on the couch and complained of pain in his back and

chest.

[3] Hayworth called the police, who arrived shortly thereafter. Prysock admitted to

pushing Hayworth because Hayworth was “meddling in [his] business.” (Id. at

26.) On October 22, 2015, the State charged Prysock with Class A

misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. On May 2, 2016, the trial court

held a bench trial during which Prysock claimed he pushed Hayworth in self-

defense because Hayworth grabbed Prysock’s genitals. The trial court found

Prysock guilty as charged.

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(d) (2014).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-CR-1141 | January 20, 2017 Page 2 of 5 Discussion and Decision [4] Our review of whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut a claim

of self-defense is the same as that of any sufficiency of evidence claim. Miller v.

State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 699 (Ind. 1999). We will not “reweigh the evidence or

assess the 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

constitute substantial evidence of probative value sufficient to support the

judgment.” Id.

[5] Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury occurs when a person

“knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry

manner” and that touching “results in bodily injury to any other person.” Ind.

Code § 35-42-2-1(c)-(d) (2014). “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) (2013). To prevail on a claim of self-defense, Prysock had

to show he: (1) was where he 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. See Brand v. State, 766 N.E.2d 772, 777 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)

(requirements of a self-defense claim), reh’g denied, trans. denied. The State has

the burden of rebutting a claim of self-defense, and to do so, it must negate at

least one of the three elements of self-defense. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-CR-1141 | January 20, 2017 Page 3 of 5 [6] Prysock admits he pushed Hayworth, but argues he did so in self-defense.

Prysock testified Hayworth “grabbed [him] in [his] private area,” (Tr. at 31),

and he pushed Hayworth in the chest “[b]ecause [Hayworth] grabbed [him.]”

(Id. at 32.) However, Hayworth testified Prysock “came storming out of

[Prysock’s] room, hollering and stuff and he just pushed [Hayworth] out of

nowhere with force and [Hayworth] went flying across [the] living room.” (Id.

at 17.) Additionally, the responding officer, Lieutenant Scott Evans, testified

that on the scene Prysock admitted to pushing Hayworth because Hayworth

“was meddling in [his] business.” (Id. at 26.) Prysock’s argument is an

invitation for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses,

which we cannot do. See Miller, 720 N.E.2d at 699 (appellate court does not

reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses). The trial court was not

required to believe Prysock’s testimony, and the testimony from Hayworth was

sufficient to disprove Prysock’s claim of self-defense. See, e.g., Wilson v. State,

770 N.E.2d 799, 801 (Ind. 2002) (conflicting evidence about whether defendant

was provoked permitted trier-of-fact to reject defendant’s claim of self-defense).

Conclusion [7] Prysock asks us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses,

which we cannot do. The State presented sufficient evidence Prysock was not

acting in self-defense when he committed Class A misdemeanor battery

resulting in bodily injury. We affirm.

[8] Affirmed.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-CR-1141 | January 20, 2017 Page 4 of 5 Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-CR-1141 | January 20, 2017 Page 5 of 5