Michelle Shanell Austin, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Michelle Shanell Austin appeals her conviction for Class B misdemeanor battery. Austin raises the following two issues for our review:

1. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut her claim of self-defense.

2. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support her conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On March 28, 2024, Austin and Jill Foley both drove into a CVS parking lot in Marion County to access the pharmacy drive-thru. Foley entered from a point that allowed her to drive straight into the drive-thru lane while Austin entered from a point that required her to circle around to the drive-thru. Foley saw Austin entering into the parking lot and understood that Austin would have to circle around, and so Foley “gave [Austin] space” to pull in front of Foley. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 13. However, Austin was “on her phone,” and, after about ten seconds of waiting, Foley decided to pull forward. Id. at 14.

[4] After the car in front of Foley had pulled away from the drive-thru window, Foley pulled her vehicle up to the window. At that time, Austin exited her vehicle and stood between Foley's driver's window and the CVS drive-thru window. Austin then accused Foley of “cut[ting her] off.” Id. at 15. Foley responded that she gave Austin space but Austin did not take it because she was on her phone. Austin then replied, “Well, then you should've honked,” and then wondered aloud if Foley was sexually frustrated. Id. at 15-16.

[5] Foley told Austin to “get your fat a** out of my window.” Id. Unfortunately, the conversation devolved from there. Austin eventually reached into Foley's vehicle and attempted to grab Foley's phone. Foley also held her phone, and Austin's grip was on top of Foley's. Foley later described Austin's grip as a “death grip.” Id. at 16. Austin then pulled on Foley's hand and phone, which resulted in Austin ripping off three of Foley's acrylic fingernails. A CVS employee then called law enforcement officers to the scene.

[6] The State charged Austin with Class A misdemeanor battery. At her ensuing bench trial, both Foley and Austin testified. According to Austin, Foley struck her in the back with her phone while Austin was attempting to communicate with the CVS employee at the window. Austin then turned around, and Foley “attempted to strike me again.” Id. at 31. At that point, Austin continued, she “tried to remove the device” from Foley. Id. at 32.

[7] The trial court found Austin guilty of lesser-included Class B misdemeanor battery. The court then entered its judgment of conviction and sentenced Austin accordingly, and this appeal ensued.

1. The State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Austin's claim of self-defense.

[8] On appeal, Austin first contends that the State failed to rebut her claim of self-defense. A defendant's challenge to the adequacy of the State's evidence rebutting a self-defense claim is reviewed like any other sufficiency of the evidence claim. Brown v. State, 738 N.E.2d 271, 273 (Ind. 2000). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). Rather, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment, examining whether a reasonable fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. So long as there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense, we will affirm. Lehman v. State, 203 N.E.3d 1097, 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied.

[9] Self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c) (2023); Larkin v. State, 173 N.E.3d 662, 670 (Ind. 2021). A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person to protect herself “if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person ․” I.C. § 35-41-3-2(c). To prevail on her self-defense claim, Austin was required to show that she: “(1) was in a place where [s]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.” Quinn v. State, 126 N.E.3d 924, 927 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “But when a case does not involve deadly force, a defendant claiming self-defense 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; see also I.C. § 35-41-3-2(c).

[10] When a claim of self-defense is made, and the claim 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 rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by relying on the sufficiency of the case-in chief.” Quinn, 126 N.E.3d at 927. Whether the State has met its burden is a question for the trier of fact. Kimbrough v. State, 911 N.E.2d 621, 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). 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. Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

[11] Austin contends that her testimony establishes that Foley had attacked Austin with her phone and appeared to be ready to attack Austin again with the phone. Thus, she continues, she had the right to defend herself against that unlawful use of force by attempting to seize Foley's phone.

[12] Austin's argument on appeal is simply a request for this Court to disregard Foley's testimony, which is the evidence credited by the fact-finder, and to instead credit Austin's testimony. We will not do so. The facts most favorable to the judgment demonstrate that Austin attacked Foley, not the other way around. Accordingly, the trial court acted within its province as the fact-finder when it did not credit Austin's version of the events, and we affirm the court's rejection of her claim of self-defense.

2. The State presented sufficient evidence to support Austin's conviction.

[13] Austin also contends that the State failed to prove that she committed Class B misdemeanor battery. Again, for challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the judgment of the trier of fact. Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021). We will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility. Id. We will affirm a conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[14] To prove Class B misdemeanor battery, the State was required to show that Austin knowingly or intentionally touched Foley in a “rude, insolent, or angry manner.” I.C. § 35-42-2-1(c)(1). A person engages in conduct “intentionally” if, when she engages in the conduct, it is her conscious objective to do so. I.C. § 35-41-2-2(a). A person engages in conduct “knowingly” if, when she engages in the conduct, she is aware of a high probability that she is doing so. I.C. § 35-41-2-2(b).

[15] Austin contends that the evidence shows only that she knowingly or intentionally attempted to grab Foley's phone, not that she knowingly or intentionally grabbed Foley's hand. But Austin acknowledges that Foley testified that she was holding her phone when Austin reached into the car to grab it. A reasonable fact-finder could conclude from that evidence that Austin was aware of a high probability that she would thus touch Foley when she grabbed at an object in Foley's hand. Further, as the State notes, Austin's contact with Foley was not incidental; Austin grabbed Foley's hand in a “death grip” and pulled, resulting in Foley's broken nails. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 16.

[16] Accordingly, the State presented sufficient evidence to support Austin's conviction for Class B misdemeanor battery.

Conclusion

[17] For all of these reasons, we affirm Austin's conviction.

[18] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

Judges Brown and Kenworthy concur. Brown, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.