Shannon Kay White, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Shannon Kay White (“White”) was convicted after a bench trial of battery resulting in bodily injury as a Class A misdemeanor ¹ and resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor.² White appeals, claiming that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut her claims of self-defense and defense of property. Identifying sufficient evidence, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 17, 2024, Officer Samuel Cohrs (“Officer Cohrs”) of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department responded to a disturbance in a residential area of Indianapolis. Officer Cohrs arrived and found Kelsey Showecker (“Showecker”) with a broken and bloodied fingernail and fragments of her hair missing. These injuries were the result of an altercation with White.

[3] The altercation stemmed from a dispute over a handicap parking spot. Showecker was visiting a friend and parked her vehicle in a handicap spot across the street from White's residence and “wasn't exactly sure where the handicap [spot] started and ended at.” Tr. Vol. II p. 22. While Showecker was inside her friend's home, White arrived home and observed Showecker's vehicle in the handicap parking spot, a spot for her elderly mother. White double parked her vehicle next to Showecker's, blocking Showecker into the parking spot and preventing her from exiting the parking spot. Before White went inside her home, Showecker emerged from her friend's residence and yelled across the street that she would move her vehicle. White responded to Showecker and stated that she would “have to hold on a minute.” Id. at 79. After waiting a few minutes, Showecker honked her vehicle's horn. When White failed to re-emerge from her home, Showecker approached White's residence, opened the front gate, and walked to the front door. Showecker knocked on the glass window to get White's attention. White came to the door and told Showecker she could wait until she was done getting ready. Showecker and White then had a heated argument and exchanged curse words at each other. During the argument, White started “stepping and stepping towards [Showecker] more in [her] personal bubble.” Id. at 27. White slowly stepped towards Showecker, moving from the entrance of her home out to the front porch. Feeling threatened, Showecker “put [her] hands up in front of [herself] and shoved.” Id. at 28.

[4] White returned the shove with a “right hook,” punching Showecker on the side of the head and knocking her glasses off. Id. at 29. In response, Showecker balled up her left hand and returned a blow. Showecker knew she hit White because “[Showecker] felt [her] nail snap.” Id. Thereafter, White knocked Showecker to the concrete porch floor, where White got on top of Showecker and “[White] wrapped her hands up into the side of [Showecker's] head and [her] hair and repetitively was banging [Showecker's] head against the ground.” Id.

[5] After having her head and body repeatedly slammed against the concrete porch, Showecker was able to free herself by pleading with White “I'm done, get off, get off, I'm done.” Id. at 31. Thereafter, Showecker was able to stand up and walk out of the front gate. Showecker suffered a broken nail as a result of the altercation and complained that her “face was throbbing, and [her] head was pounding. [Her] ears were ringing.” Id. at 32. After exiting the property, Showecker called the police.

[6] Once Officer Cohrs arrived on scene, he spoke to Showecker and observed that she had a “broken and bloody fingernail ․ and had fragments of hair that had been ․ pulled out.” Id. at 59. During the course of Officer Cohrs's investigation, he determined that White's car was parked illegally and ordered a tow truck to tow the vehicle. Based upon the information provided by Showecker, Officer Cohrs concluded that he had probable cause to arrest White for battery. Once White learned that her vehicle was being towed, she began arguing with Office Cohrs. Officer Cohrs told White she was being placed under arrest, and thereafter, White attempted to pull herself away from Officer Cohrs numerous times by grabbing hold of her fence. After repeated attempts warning White to remove her arm from the fence—and White ignoring Officer Cohrs's order to put her hands behind her back—he was forced to take White to the ground to place her in handcuffs.

[7] On January 18, 2024, White was charged with battery resulting in bodily injury as a Class A misdemeanor and resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor. A bench trial was held on April 11, 2024, at which White raised claims of self-defense and defense of property. White provided testimony that she walked away from her front door when speaking with Showecker, and then Showecker “open[ed] the screen door.” Id. at 79. Thereafter, White “knew that [she] was not going to let [Showecker] get into [her] house” because her mother was sitting right behind her. Id. at 80. White then went out to the porch where she stated that Showecker “pushe[d] [her] backwards.” Id. White responded by punching Showecker in the side of her head. Ultimately, the trial court rejected White's claims of self-defense and found White guilty as charged.

[8] The trial court immediately proceeded to sentencing. The trial court entered a judgment of conviction on both counts and sentenced White to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 180 days, 174 of which were suspended to probation on each count. White now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] White challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction for battery resulting in bodily injury as a Class A misdemeanor, claiming that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut her claim of self-defense and defense of property. “Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims ․ warrant a deferential standard, in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256, 262 (Ind. 2020). “We consider instead only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting the trial court's [judgment],” affirming “unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fix v. State, 186 N.E.3d 1134, 1138 (Ind. 2022)) (Jackson v. State, 50 N.E.3d 767, 770 (Ind. 2016)).

I. Self-Defense

[10] 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.” Ervin v. State, 114 N.E.3d 888, 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (citing Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 2000)). Indiana Code section 35-41-3-2 codifies the right to act in self-defense, declaring that “it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime.” “A valid claim of defense of oneself or another person is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.” Quinn v. State, 126 N.E.3d 924, 927 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citing Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002)). As to a claim of self-defense, “Indiana law distinguishes force from deadly force[.]” Dixson v. State, 22 N.E.3d 836, 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. That is, “[a] person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect [himself] ․ from what [he] reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c). However, a person “is justified in using deadly force” and “does not have a duty to retreat” if he “reasonably believes that th[e] force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to [himself].” Id.

[11] As our Supreme Court explained in Larkin v. State, a defendant claiming self-defense must first satisfy a threshold evidentiary requirement to place self-defense at issue. 173 N.E.3d 662, 670 (Ind. 2021). In cases involving deadly force, this requires evidence that the defendant was in a place where he had a right to be, acted without fault, and had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. Dixon, 22 N.E.3d at 839. “But when a case does not involve deadly force, a defendant claiming self-defense must only show that he was protecting himself from what he ‘reasonably believe[d] to be the imminent use of unlawful force.’ ” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting (I.C. § 35-41-3-2(c)). Once the defendant has satisfied this initial requirement, the State then bears the burden of negating at least one of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Larkin, 173 N.E.3d at 670. The State may do so by “rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief.” Id. “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.” Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800–01. “The amount of force that an individual may use to protect himself or herself must be proportionate to the urgency of the situation.” Harmon v. State, 849 N.E.2d 726, 730–31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)). “When a person uses more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances, the right of self-defense is extinguished.” Id. at 731.

[12] In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut her self-defense claim, White argues that her decision to punch Showecker in the head was a proportionate response to being shoved by Showecker because “[b]oth involve putting hands on another person and neither of these is inherently more violent or out of proportion to the other.” Appellant's Br. p. 10. Since this case does not involve deadly force, White, claiming self-defense, “must only show that [she] was protecting [herself] from what [she] ‘reasonably believe[d] to be the imminent use of unlawful force.’ ” Dixon, 22 N.E.3d at 839. The evidence favorable to the judgment establishes that White stepped towards Showecker, pointed her finger in Showecker's face, and cursed at Showecker. Feeling threatened, Showecker “put [her] hands up in front [herself] and shoved.” Tr. Vol. II p. 28. White responded by delivering a “right hook” to the side of the Showecker's head. Id. at 29. Showecker balled up her left hand and returned a blow. Thereafter, White knocked Showecker to the ground, got on top of Showecker, and grabbed Showecker's hair to repeatedly slam her head and upper body against the concrete floor. Showecker was left with a broken and bloodied fingernail and fragments of her hair missing, a throbbing head and ringing in her ears. A reasonable fact finder could conclude that White escalated the altercation when she exited her home, White stepped towards Showecker, and put her finger in Showecker's face. Further, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the amount of force used by White, specifically repeatedly slamming Showecker's head against the concrete porch and pulling portions of Showecker's hair out, was not proportional to any threat that Showecker may have posed. See Weedman v. State, 21 N.E.3d 873, 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (where defendant's “alleged actions did not qualify as self-defense because he used more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances”).

[13] We, therefore, conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to negate White's claim of self-defense and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of battery resulting in bodily injury. White's arguments to the contrary are requests to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Powell, 151 N.E.3d at 262.

II. Defense of Property

[14] White challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut her claim of defense of property, which was premised on the defense of her residence. Indiana Code section 35-41-3-2(d) states:

A person: (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

“A claim of ‘defense of property is analogous to the defense of self-defense.’ ” Ervin, 114 N.E.3d at 895 (quoting Hanic v. State, 406 N.E.2d 335, 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980)). “The State must disprove at least one element of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Gomez v. State, 56 N.E.3d 697, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Nantz v. State, 740 N.E.2d 1276, 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied). To prevail on a claim of defense of property, the defendant is “required to prove that [she] used reasonable force to prevent or terminate a trespass or to defend [her] property or ․ property [she] was authorized to protect.” Id. “Any force employed must be reasonable in light of ‘the urgency of the situation.’ ” Gomez, 56 N.E.3d at 702.

[15] White specifically argues that “the fact that [Showecker] attacked [her] in the doorway of [her] own home makes the battery conviction unreasonable and completely unsupportable.” Appellant's Br. p. 11. Based on the evidence presented, the fact finder could reasonably conclude that Showecker did not trespass or otherwise unlawfully enter or pose a threat to White's property. The evidence most favorable to the judgment indicated that Showecker approached White's residence and knocked on her front door to get White to move her car. Showecker knocked on the door “three to four times.” Tr. Vol. II p. 42. Although White argues that Showecker opened the screen door and White thought she was trying to come into the home, the facts indicate that Showecker shoved White after backing away from the doorway and while on the concrete porch. There is no evidence indicating that Showecker attempted to gain entry into White's residence or otherwise trespassed upon White's property. Showecker merely was on her property “ask[ing] her to move her car and [White] went, was aggressive right off the bat.” Id. at 27. In addition to the absence of a reasonable threat to White's property, and as we discussed in the previous section, White's use of force against Showecker was unreasonable and disproportional under the circumstances.

[16] Ultimately, White's assertions ask us to reweigh evidence and judge witness credibility, which we will not do. See Powell, 151 N.E.3d at 262. Sufficient evidence was presented to support that Showecker posed no reasonable threat to White's property and White's use of force in the alleged defense of her property was not reasonable in light of the circumstances. We, therefore, conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to negate White's defense of property claim.

Conclusion

[17] The State presented sufficient evidence to rebut White's claims of self-defense and defense of property.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), (d)(1).

2.   I.C. § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1).

Judges Bailey and Bradford concur. Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur