OPINION
BAKER, Judge.
Appellant-defendant, Matt Wilcher, appeals his conviction for Aggravated Battery,1 a Class B felony, presenting three issues for our review. Concluding that: (1) the trial court properly exeluded certain photographs from being admitted into evidence; (2) the State met its burden of disproving Wilcher's self-defense claim; and (8) the evidence was sufficient to support the Aggravated Battery conviction, we affirm.
FACTS
The facts most favorable to the jury's verdict reveal that in the early hours of November 14, 1999, Bill Frost, Wilcher's friend, and Jeremy Jamison were arguing after Jamison discovered Frost beating on the door of Jamison's apartment. Although there was conflicting evidence as to who took the first swing, Jamison and Frost began to fight. Both men were wrestling on the ground and punching each other about the head. While Frost was on top of Jamison, Denton Winters, Jamison's friend, attempted to break up the fight. At this point, Wilcher approached Winters and stabbed him under the left arm in the chest with a knife that had a four to six-inch blade. Wilcher again approached Winters with the knife, but Winters' girlfriend got between them [115]*115and yelled at Wilcher until he. turned away. Winters fell to the ground and had difficulty breathing. Winters was bleeding from the wound in his side and drifted in and out of consciousness.
When emergency medical personnel arrived, Winters was stabilized and immediately transported to the hospital. (Winters underwent surgery, was connected to a lung machine and remained hospitalized for five days. Marion County Sheriffs deputies apprehended Wileher later that morning and recovered the knife used to stab Winters from Wilcher's vehicle.
Following a jury trial that concluded on June 13, 2001, Wilcher was found guilty. of Aggravated Battery as a class B felony He now appeals.
I. Exclusion of Photographs
Wilcher first claims that the trial court improperly exeluded certain photographs from being entered into evidence. Wilcher argues that three photos graphically depicting injuries he sustained in an unrelated fight that occurred five years earlier were relevant to the cireumstances presented here and should have been admitted. ___
In resolving this issue, we note that the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be disturbed only upon a showing that the trial court abused that discretion. Johnson v. State, 710 N.E.2d 925, 927 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). Conflicting evidence will be considered in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Id. Upon appeal, we will neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Id.
In the instant case, after Wilcher made an offer to prove regarding the admissibility of the photographs, the trial court decided not to allow them into evidence. It determined that the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighed any probative value the photos had. Wilcher now claims that, by refusing to admit these photographs into evidence, the trial court prevented the jury from "fully and properly viewing his actions from his standpoint and evaluating his self defense claim."2 Appellant's Br. at 17.
When the defendant claims self-defense, evidence of the victim's violent propensities is admissible if they were known to the defendant. Leming v. State, 487 N.E.2d 832, 834 (Ind.Ct.App.1986); see also Ind. Evidence Rule 404(a)(2); Brooks v. State, 683 N.E.2d 574, 576 (Ind.1997). The photographs Wilcher sought to admit, however, were unconnected to Winters, the victim, or Jamison, who was engaged in the fight with Wilcher's friend Frost. Thus, they do not support Wilcher's claim of self-defense. See Leming, 487 N.E.2d at 834 (determining the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the defendant's prior beating because this prior beating was not connected with current victim). Moreover, Wilcher testified regarding the beating he had received in the past and how it allegedly affected him. As a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Wilcher' s proffered photographs.
II. Self-Defense
Wilcher next contends that the State failed to disprove his claim of self-defense. We note, however, that other than asserting that the trial court erred in excluding the above-mentioned photographs, Wilcher does not separately argue [116]*116how the evidence was insufficient to rebut his self-defense claim.
Even so, we note that Ind.Code § 35-41-3-2(a) provides that one is justified in using reasonable force against another to protect himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using deadly force only if he reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to himself or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. Id. For a claim of self-defense to prevail, the defendant must show that he (1) was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence; and (8) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Rodriguez v. State, 714 N.E.2d 667, 670 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied.
Once the defendant asserts a claim of self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving the existence of one of the elements of the claim. Mariscal v. State, 687 N.E.2d 378, 381 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied. The State may rebut a claim of self-defense by affirmatively showing that the defendant did not act to defend himself or another by relying on the evidence elicited in the case-in-chief. Id. 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 challenge. Rodriguez, 714 N.E.2d at 670. A defendant's conviction will be upheld unless no reasonable person could say that the State negated the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Lilly v. State, 506 N.E.2d 23, 24 (Ind.1987); Mariscal, 687 N.E.2d at 381.
Here, the evidence favorable to the jury's verdict reveals that Wilcher stabbed Winters in the chest while Winters was simply attempting to break up a fight between Jamison and Frost. The jury was not required to credit Wileher's testimony that he acted under the belief that he needed to protect Frost from Winters. See Mariscal, 687 N.E.2d at 381 (question of whether State disproved a self-defense claim is a question for the trier of fact). The evidence favoring the verdict was sufficient to rebut Wilcher's claim of self-defense.
III,. Sufficiency of Evidence
Finally, Wilcher contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for Aggravated Battery. He argues that the State failed to establish that the injury inflicted upon Winters created a substantial risk of death to Winters.3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
BAKER, Judge.
Appellant-defendant, Matt Wilcher, appeals his conviction for Aggravated Battery,1 a Class B felony, presenting three issues for our review. Concluding that: (1) the trial court properly exeluded certain photographs from being admitted into evidence; (2) the State met its burden of disproving Wilcher's self-defense claim; and (8) the evidence was sufficient to support the Aggravated Battery conviction, we affirm.
FACTS
The facts most favorable to the jury's verdict reveal that in the early hours of November 14, 1999, Bill Frost, Wilcher's friend, and Jeremy Jamison were arguing after Jamison discovered Frost beating on the door of Jamison's apartment. Although there was conflicting evidence as to who took the first swing, Jamison and Frost began to fight. Both men were wrestling on the ground and punching each other about the head. While Frost was on top of Jamison, Denton Winters, Jamison's friend, attempted to break up the fight. At this point, Wilcher approached Winters and stabbed him under the left arm in the chest with a knife that had a four to six-inch blade. Wilcher again approached Winters with the knife, but Winters' girlfriend got between them [115]*115and yelled at Wilcher until he. turned away. Winters fell to the ground and had difficulty breathing. Winters was bleeding from the wound in his side and drifted in and out of consciousness.
When emergency medical personnel arrived, Winters was stabilized and immediately transported to the hospital. (Winters underwent surgery, was connected to a lung machine and remained hospitalized for five days. Marion County Sheriffs deputies apprehended Wileher later that morning and recovered the knife used to stab Winters from Wilcher's vehicle.
Following a jury trial that concluded on June 13, 2001, Wilcher was found guilty. of Aggravated Battery as a class B felony He now appeals.
I. Exclusion of Photographs
Wilcher first claims that the trial court improperly exeluded certain photographs from being entered into evidence. Wilcher argues that three photos graphically depicting injuries he sustained in an unrelated fight that occurred five years earlier were relevant to the cireumstances presented here and should have been admitted. ___
In resolving this issue, we note that the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be disturbed only upon a showing that the trial court abused that discretion. Johnson v. State, 710 N.E.2d 925, 927 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). Conflicting evidence will be considered in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Id. Upon appeal, we will neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Id.
In the instant case, after Wilcher made an offer to prove regarding the admissibility of the photographs, the trial court decided not to allow them into evidence. It determined that the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighed any probative value the photos had. Wilcher now claims that, by refusing to admit these photographs into evidence, the trial court prevented the jury from "fully and properly viewing his actions from his standpoint and evaluating his self defense claim."2 Appellant's Br. at 17.
When the defendant claims self-defense, evidence of the victim's violent propensities is admissible if they were known to the defendant. Leming v. State, 487 N.E.2d 832, 834 (Ind.Ct.App.1986); see also Ind. Evidence Rule 404(a)(2); Brooks v. State, 683 N.E.2d 574, 576 (Ind.1997). The photographs Wilcher sought to admit, however, were unconnected to Winters, the victim, or Jamison, who was engaged in the fight with Wilcher's friend Frost. Thus, they do not support Wilcher's claim of self-defense. See Leming, 487 N.E.2d at 834 (determining the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the defendant's prior beating because this prior beating was not connected with current victim). Moreover, Wilcher testified regarding the beating he had received in the past and how it allegedly affected him. As a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Wilcher' s proffered photographs.
II. Self-Defense
Wilcher next contends that the State failed to disprove his claim of self-defense. We note, however, that other than asserting that the trial court erred in excluding the above-mentioned photographs, Wilcher does not separately argue [116]*116how the evidence was insufficient to rebut his self-defense claim.
Even so, we note that Ind.Code § 35-41-3-2(a) provides that one is justified in using reasonable force against another to protect himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using deadly force only if he reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to himself or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. Id. For a claim of self-defense to prevail, the defendant must show that he (1) was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence; and (8) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Rodriguez v. State, 714 N.E.2d 667, 670 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied.
Once the defendant asserts a claim of self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving the existence of one of the elements of the claim. Mariscal v. State, 687 N.E.2d 378, 381 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied. The State may rebut a claim of self-defense by affirmatively showing that the defendant did not act to defend himself or another by relying on the evidence elicited in the case-in-chief. Id. 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 challenge. Rodriguez, 714 N.E.2d at 670. A defendant's conviction will be upheld unless no reasonable person could say that the State negated the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Lilly v. State, 506 N.E.2d 23, 24 (Ind.1987); Mariscal, 687 N.E.2d at 381.
Here, the evidence favorable to the jury's verdict reveals that Wilcher stabbed Winters in the chest while Winters was simply attempting to break up a fight between Jamison and Frost. The jury was not required to credit Wileher's testimony that he acted under the belief that he needed to protect Frost from Winters. See Mariscal, 687 N.E.2d at 381 (question of whether State disproved a self-defense claim is a question for the trier of fact). The evidence favoring the verdict was sufficient to rebut Wilcher's claim of self-defense.
III,. Sufficiency of Evidence
Finally, Wilcher contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for Aggravated Battery. He argues that the State failed to establish that the injury inflicted upon Winters created a substantial risk of death to Winters.3
Upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court will not reweigh evidence or determine the eredi-bility of witnesses. VanMatre v. State, 714 N.E.2d 655, 657-58 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). Instead, we will look only to the evidence favorable to the judgment along with any reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. at 657. If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable [117]*117doubt, we will affirm the conviction.. Id. at 658.
Indiana Code section 35-42-2-1.5 states:
A person who knowingly or intentionally inflicts injury on a person that creates a substantial risk of death or causes:
(1) serious permanent disfigurement;
(2) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bod_i1y member or organ; or
(8) the loss of a fetus;
commits aggravated battery, a Class B felony.
The charging information against Wil-cher stated, "Matt Wilcher, on or about November 14, 1999, did knowingly inflict injury, that is: laceration to the heart, on another person, namely: Denton Winters, that created a substantial risk of death to Denton Winters, by stabbing with a knife." Appellant's App. p. 21. ‘
Relying upon Valentine v. State, 257 Ind. 197, 273 N.E.2d 548 (1971), the State urges that, from the evidence presented regarding the nature and location of Winters's injuries and the treatment provided to him, the jury could reasonably infer that Wilcher caused a substantial risk of death to Winters. In Valentine, the victim was shot in the left temple with a .88 caliber bullet and hospitalized for one week. On appeal, our Supreme Court held that, contrary to the defendant's claims, expert medical testimony was not required to establish "great bodily harm," which was a material element of the former crime of aggravated assault and battery as codified by Indiana Code section 35-18-8-1 (1971), with which the defendant was charged. 257 Ind. at 201, 273 N.E.2d at 545. The current Aggravated Battery statute, however, requires a showing of "substantial risk of death," not "great bodily harm." See I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5.
Notwithstanding this change in the statute, no expert medical testimony was required to prove this element of the offense. As discussed in the FACTS, the testimony at trial revealed that Winters was stabbed in the upper-left side of his chest at heart level. Tr. p. 57-60, 110. As a result, Winters began to bleed and had breathing difficulties. 'The knife had a blade of four to six inches in length, Winters drifted in and out of consciousness after the stabbing, he underwent surgery, remained hospitalized for five days and was connected to a Iung machine. «Tr. p. 26, 60-62.
In light of the evidence presented with regard to the nature and location of the injury, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Wilcher exposed Winters to a substantial risk of death. Common knowledge bears out the conclusion that an individual is confronted with a substantial risk of death following a stab wound to the chest in cireumstances such as these presented here. See Beanblossom v. State, 530 N.E.2d 741, 742-43 (Ind.1988) (finding that the victim sustained an injury which created a substantial risk of death when he received a blow to the back of the head which was forceful enough to knock him down to his hands and knees and to cause him to remain in a semiconscious state for a short period of time). As a result, the evidence was sufficient to support Wil-cher's conviction for Aggravated Battery as a class B felony. _
CONCLUSION
In light of our resolution of the issues set forth above, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in exelud-ing Wilcher's proffered photographs and the evidence was sufficient to rebut Wil-cher's claims of self-defense. Finally, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to [118]*118support Wilcher's conviction for Aggravated Battery.
Judgment affirmed.
DARDEN, J., concurs.
SULLIVAN, J., dissents with opinion.