MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 16 2017, 9:11 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General
Laura R. Anderson Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Travis Allen, August 16, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1609-CR-1982 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Allan W. Reid, Appellee-Plaintiff Commissioner Trial Court Cause No. 49G16-1606-CM-24839
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Travis D. Allen appeals his conviction for class A misdemeanor domestic
battery, following a bench trial. Allen claims that the State failed to present
sufficient evidence to rebut his self-defense claim. We disagree and therefore
affirm his conviction.
Facts and Procedural History [2] On June 27, 2016, Allen and his girlfriend, Rachel Hardy, had a barbeque party
in the pool area of their apartment complex. The couple were in a romantic
relationship, had been living together, and had two children together. A verbal
altercation occurred when Hardy objected to Allen offering food to two females
who were walking by the barbecue. The situation escalated when the couple
returned to their apartment, at which time Allen attempted to choke Hardy
“two or three times.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 10. Hardy called the police. The officer who
arrived at the scene talked with both Hardy and Allen, but no arrest was made
at that time.
[3] After an hour or so, Allen started “talking crazy” and attacked Hardy by
choking her. Id. at 11. Shortly thereafter, Allen attacked Hardy again. She tried
to get away from Allen, but he grabbed her arm, causing her to fall to the
ground and scratch her elbow. Several of the neighbors heard the altercation,
came over to the apartment, and intervened. The neighbors told Allen, “leave
her alone, get off her, you can’t be doing that to her and stuff.” Id. at 13. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 2 of 6 neighbors then attacked Allen, causing a knot on his head and swelling of his
eye. Hardy called the police a second time.
[4] Officer Christopher Mills of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
responded to the scene. Officer Mills observed that Hardy was upset and
complained of pain in her elbow. According to Officer Mills, Hardy had “an
abrasion on her left elbow that appeared fresh.” Id. at 27. Officer Mills also
observed that Allen’s left eye was swollen. Allen told Officer Mills that he
received the injury to his eye when he was “jumped by some males in the
apartment complex.” Id. at 28, 47.
[5] The State charged Allen with two counts of class A misdemeanor domestic
battery and two counts of class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily
injury. At trial, Allen claimed that Hardy attacked him and that he acted in self-
defense. The State dismissed one count of domestic battery and one count of
battery. The court found Allen guilty of the remaining two charges, merged the
class A misdemeanor battery into the class A misdemeanor domestic battery,
and entered judgment of conviction on the domestic battery verdict. The trial
court imposed a one-year sentence. Allen now appeals.
Discussion and Decision [6] To prove that Allen committed domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor, the
State was required to show that he knowingly or intentionally touched Hardy, a
person with whom he had a common child, in a rude, insolent, or angry
manner that resulted in bodily injury. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a). The State
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 3 of 6 alleged that Allen committed domestic battery against Hardy by grabbing her
arm and pulling her to the ground, resulting in pain, swelling, and/or bruising.
Allen claims that he acted in self-defense and that the State failed to rebut this
claim with sufficient evidence.
[7] The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to rebut a
self-defense claim is the same as the standard for any sufficiency of the evidence
claim. Kimbrough v. State, 911 N.E.2d 621, 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). We
neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Jackson
v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 (Ind. 2010). We consider only the probative
evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom that support the conviction, and
we consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.
Stephenson v. State, 53 N.E.3d 557, 560 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). If a defendant is
convicted despite his claim of self-defense, this Court will reverse only if no
reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a
reasonable doubt. Kimbrough, 911 N.E.2d at 635.
[8] A valid self-defense claim is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.
Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). A person is justified in using
reasonable force against another 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. To prevail on such a claim, the defendant must
show that he was in a place where he had a right to be, acted without fault, and
“was protecting himself from what he reasonably believed to be the imminent
use of unlawful force.” Dixson v. State, 22 N.E.3d 836, 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014),
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 4 of 6 trans. denied (2015). An initial aggressor or a mutual combatant, whether or not
the initial aggressor, must withdraw from the encounter and communicate the
intent to do so to the other person, before he may claim self-defense. Wilson v.
State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 801 (Ind. 2002). When a claim of self-defense is raised,
and finds support in the evidence, the State has the burden of negating at least
one of the necessary elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Id at 800. The State
can rebut the defendant’s self-defense claim by relying on the evidence of its
case-in-chief. Carroll v. State, 744 N.E.2d 432, 434 (Ind. 2001).
[9] Allen notes that he was in a place where he had a right to be and claims that he
was not the instigator of the encounter.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 16 2017, 9:11 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General
Laura R. Anderson Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Travis Allen, August 16, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1609-CR-1982 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Allan W. Reid, Appellee-Plaintiff Commissioner Trial Court Cause No. 49G16-1606-CM-24839
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Travis D. Allen appeals his conviction for class A misdemeanor domestic
battery, following a bench trial. Allen claims that the State failed to present
sufficient evidence to rebut his self-defense claim. We disagree and therefore
affirm his conviction.
Facts and Procedural History [2] On June 27, 2016, Allen and his girlfriend, Rachel Hardy, had a barbeque party
in the pool area of their apartment complex. The couple were in a romantic
relationship, had been living together, and had two children together. A verbal
altercation occurred when Hardy objected to Allen offering food to two females
who were walking by the barbecue. The situation escalated when the couple
returned to their apartment, at which time Allen attempted to choke Hardy
“two or three times.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 10. Hardy called the police. The officer who
arrived at the scene talked with both Hardy and Allen, but no arrest was made
at that time.
[3] After an hour or so, Allen started “talking crazy” and attacked Hardy by
choking her. Id. at 11. Shortly thereafter, Allen attacked Hardy again. She tried
to get away from Allen, but he grabbed her arm, causing her to fall to the
ground and scratch her elbow. Several of the neighbors heard the altercation,
came over to the apartment, and intervened. The neighbors told Allen, “leave
her alone, get off her, you can’t be doing that to her and stuff.” Id. at 13. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 2 of 6 neighbors then attacked Allen, causing a knot on his head and swelling of his
eye. Hardy called the police a second time.
[4] Officer Christopher Mills of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
responded to the scene. Officer Mills observed that Hardy was upset and
complained of pain in her elbow. According to Officer Mills, Hardy had “an
abrasion on her left elbow that appeared fresh.” Id. at 27. Officer Mills also
observed that Allen’s left eye was swollen. Allen told Officer Mills that he
received the injury to his eye when he was “jumped by some males in the
apartment complex.” Id. at 28, 47.
[5] The State charged Allen with two counts of class A misdemeanor domestic
battery and two counts of class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily
injury. At trial, Allen claimed that Hardy attacked him and that he acted in self-
defense. The State dismissed one count of domestic battery and one count of
battery. The court found Allen guilty of the remaining two charges, merged the
class A misdemeanor battery into the class A misdemeanor domestic battery,
and entered judgment of conviction on the domestic battery verdict. The trial
court imposed a one-year sentence. Allen now appeals.
Discussion and Decision [6] To prove that Allen committed domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor, the
State was required to show that he knowingly or intentionally touched Hardy, a
person with whom he had a common child, in a rude, insolent, or angry
manner that resulted in bodily injury. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a). The State
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 3 of 6 alleged that Allen committed domestic battery against Hardy by grabbing her
arm and pulling her to the ground, resulting in pain, swelling, and/or bruising.
Allen claims that he acted in self-defense and that the State failed to rebut this
claim with sufficient evidence.
[7] The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to rebut a
self-defense claim is the same as the standard for any sufficiency of the evidence
claim. Kimbrough v. State, 911 N.E.2d 621, 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). We
neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Jackson
v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 (Ind. 2010). We consider only the probative
evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom that support the conviction, and
we consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.
Stephenson v. State, 53 N.E.3d 557, 560 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). If a defendant is
convicted despite his claim of self-defense, this Court will reverse only if no
reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a
reasonable doubt. Kimbrough, 911 N.E.2d at 635.
[8] A valid self-defense claim is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.
Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). A person is justified in using
reasonable force against another 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. To prevail on such a claim, the defendant must
show that he was in a place where he had a right to be, acted without fault, and
“was protecting himself from what he reasonably believed to be the imminent
use of unlawful force.” Dixson v. State, 22 N.E.3d 836, 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014),
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 4 of 6 trans. denied (2015). An initial aggressor or a mutual combatant, whether or not
the initial aggressor, must withdraw from the encounter and communicate the
intent to do so to the other person, before he may claim self-defense. Wilson v.
State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 801 (Ind. 2002). When a claim of self-defense is raised,
and finds support in the evidence, the State has the burden of negating at least
one of the necessary elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Id at 800. The State
can rebut the defendant’s self-defense claim by relying on the evidence of its
case-in-chief. Carroll v. State, 744 N.E.2d 432, 434 (Ind. 2001).
[9] Allen notes that he was in a place where he had a right to be and claims that he
was not the instigator of the encounter. He maintains that it is far more likely
from the evidence that Hardy was the aggressor and caused him to protect
himself. He points to the verbal altercation that occurred earlier in the day and
describes Hardy as being even more upset when she found an empty bottle of
alcohol in the kitchen sink. He contends that Hardy struck him with the empty
bottle, causing injury to his nose and eye.
[10] However, the evidence most favorable to the trial court's ruling showed that
Allen initiated the physical confrontation by attacking Hardy on two or three
separate occasions. On one occasion, she attempted to walk away from Allen
when he grabbed her arm, causing her to fall and suffer an abrasion to her
elbow. Officer Mills confirmed the presence of the abrasion on Hardy’s elbow
and testified that the injury appeared fresh when he arrived on the scene. Hardy
testified that she did not hit Allen or strike him with an empty bottle. Both
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 5 of 6 Hardy and Officer Mills testified that Allen’s swollen eye occurred when
neighbors in the apartment complex attacked him in Hardy’s defense.
[11] The factfinder was not required to credit Allen’s self-serving version of events.
In essence, Allen’s argument is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence,
which we will not do. Even by Allen’s own account, he and Hardy were
engaged in a mutual altercation that escalated without any attempt by Allen to
withdraw from the encounter. Based upon the record, we conclude that the
State presented probative evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could
have found that Allen did not validly act in self-defense and that he was guilty
of domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor. Therefore, we affirm Allen’s
conviction.
[12] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-1982 | August 16, 2017 Page 6 of 6