Tiffany Patton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 9, 2017
• Docket: 49A02-1702-CR-287
• 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 court except for the purpose of establishing Aug 09 2017, 7:52 am

the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court

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

Tiffany Patton, August 9, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1702-CR-287 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Clayton Graham, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge The Honorable Anne Flannelly, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G07-1609-CM-35615

Altice, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CR-287 | August 9, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary

[1] Following a bench trial, Tiffany Patton was convicted of Class A misdemeanor

battery. Patton now appeals, arguing that the State presented insufficient

evidence to rebut her self-defense claim.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On September 10, 2016, Patton was involved in a car accident with Anita Cole.

After the accident, Patton exited her vehicle, ran up to Cole, called Cole a

“bitch,” and struck Cole on the left side of her head, causing pain. At no point

in the altercation did Cole touch or strike Patton. Patton called 911 after the

accident and asked the dispatcher to “hurry up and get somebody out here

before I hit [Cole].” Transcript Vol. II at 34. Police arrived shortly thereafter,

and when Cole told an officer that Patton had slapped her, Patton responded by

stating “I didn’t hit you that hard.” Id. at 16. Patton told police that she was

upset because Cole had hit her vehicle and did not have insurance and that she

had slapped Cole in the face. At no point did Patton claim that she had been

threatened, touched, or struck by Cole.

[4] As a result of these events, the State charged Patton with Class A misdemeanor

battery. A bench trial was held on January 18, 2017, at the conclusion of which

Patton was found guilty as charged. The trial court imposed a one-year

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CR-287 | August 9, 2017 Page 2 of 4 sentence, the entirety of which was suspended to probation. Patton now

appeals.

Discussion & Decision

[5] Patton argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to rebut her self-

defense claim. The standard for reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of

evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same standard used for any claim

of insufficient evidence. Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 2000). We

neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. If there

is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of

fact, the judgment will not be disturbed. Id. “A valid claim of self-defense is

legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.” Id.

[6] To prevail on her self-defense claim, Patton was required to show that she: (1)

was in a place where she had a right to be; (2) acted without fault; and (3) was

in reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm. Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d

274, 277 (Ind. 2003); see also Ind. Code. § 35-41-3-2. A person who provokes,

instigates, or participates willingly in the violence does not act without fault for

the purposes of self-defense. Shoultz v. State, 995 N.E.2d 647, 660 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2013).

[7] When a self-defense claim is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State

bears the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements. Wilson v.

State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002). The State may meet its burden by

offering evidence directly rebutting the defense, by affirmatively showing that

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CR-287 | August 9, 2017 Page 3 of 4 the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by relying upon the sufficiency of

the evidence from its case-in-chief. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind.

1999). If a defendant is convicted despite a claim of self-defense, we will

reverse only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated

beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800-01.

[8] Patton’s arguments are nothing more than requests to reweigh the evidence and

judge the credibility of witnesses, which we will not do on appeal. The

testimony of Cole and the responding officers amply supports a conclusion that

Patton attacked Cole in anger because she believed Cole was at fault for the

accident. The fact-finder was in no way obligated to accept Patton’s self-serving

testimony to the contrary. The evidence presented was more than sufficient to

rebut Patton’s self-defense claim.

[9] Judgment affirmed.

[10] Baker, J. and Bailey, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CR-287 | August 9, 2017 Page 4 of 4