Anthony R. Beamon, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] While helping his mother move some of her personal belongings into a storage unit, Anthony Beamon attacked his mother, his mother's friend, and his mother's vehicle. At trial, Beamon claimed that he acted in self-defense during this altercation. The jury convicted Beamon of criminal mischief. Beamon now appeals, raising one issue for our review: Whether the State presented sufficient evidence at trial to rebut Beamon's claim of self-defense.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On the afternoon of August 27, 2022, Beamon was helping his mother, Sandra Beamon, move personal items into a storage unit in Knox County, Indiana. Norman Chapman, a friend of Sandra's, and Carter Beamon, Anthony's teenage son were also helping with the move. At some point Carter began messing with Sandra's paint brushes. Sandra told him to stop. From here, accounts of the ensuing familial fracas differ.

[4] According to Sandra and Chapman, Carter had been hitting Sandra's paint brushes with a hammer, and when Sandra told Carter to stop, Beamon asked Sandra to repeat what she said to Carter, which she did. Beamon took the hammer from Carter and used it to hit a table and a globe before he grabbed both of Sandra's arms and “threw” her against a table, Tr. Vol. II at 98.

[5] Chapman saw the altercation from several feet away and attempted to verbally diffuse the situation; it did not work. Beamon ran at and jumped on Chapman, causing both to fall to the ground and resulting in Chapman's elbow fracturing. While Beamon attacked Chapman, Sandra retreated to her vehicle to get her cell phone so she could call law enforcement. Once Beamon knocked Chapman to the ground, he grabbed a baseball bat from one of Sandra's boxes and hit the hood of her car with it; Sandra was in the driver's seat while he did so. Beamon then threw the baseball bat over a nearby fence, retrieved a kitchen knife from the floorboard of the front passenger seat of Sandra's car, waved it in the air, and threw it over the fence, too. Beamon walked away, and Sandra called law enforcement.

[6] According to Beamon and Carter, Carter did not hit Sandra's paint brushes with a hammer but instead brushed his fingers through the paint brush bristles. This “annoyed” Sandra, and she “just started yelling” and “came at” Carter with “her hand up like she was about to hit” him. Tr. Vol. III at 18. Beamon “intercepted” Sandra, id., by grabbing her wrists to stop her from hitting Carter. The two began arguing, and Sandra “c[a]me after” Beamon. Id. at 44. While Beamon and Sandra were “arguing and yelling at each other back and forth,” Chapman approached Beamon “from behind” with “his hands up,” “ready to fight.” Id. at 22. Beamon “turn[ed] around” to “stop [Chapman] from attacking him,” id., grabbing Chapman's hands as he had Sandra's. The two tripped and fell to ground. Beamon “dr[e]w back like [he] was going to hit” Chapman, id. at 46, before standing up and grabbing a baseball bat to stop Chapman from attacking a second time.

[7] Beamon then approached Sandra's car to retrieve personal items he had left in the passenger seat. Sandra “grabbed her knife,” Tr. Vol. III at 25, and waved it around. In an attempt to “distract” Sandra, Beamon struck the hood of her car with the baseball bat. Tr. Vol. III at 48. Beamon then opened the front passenger side door and “disarmed” Sandra; he then “threw [the knife] over the fence,” id. at 25. “As soon as [Beamon] threw the knife[, he] threw the baseball bat,” too. Id. at 49. Beamon and Carter then walked away.

[8] The State charged Beamon with battery resulting in moderate bodily injury as a Level 6 felony,¹ domestic battery as a Class A misdemeanor,² and criminal mischief as a Class B misdemeanor ³ . At trial, Beamon, Sandra, Chapman, and Carter all testified to their version of events. Beamon argued he acted in self-defense for all three counts. In relevant part, Beamon agreed on cross examination that he was “calmly monitoring the situation” and was “the voice of reason that day”; when asked if he was “the peacemaker,” he responded that he “was the savior.” Tr. Vol. III at 67. The jury found Beamon guilty of only criminal mischief as a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Beamon to 180 days in jail, all suspended to probation. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Rebut Beamon's Claim of Self-Defense

[9] Beamon argues that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to rebut his claim of self-defense. A valid claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Ind. Code § 35-41-3-1; Larkin v. State, 173 N.E.3d 662, 670 (Ind. 2021) (citing Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 699 (Ind. 1999)). “Whether a defendant acted in self-defense is generally a question of fact for the jury.” Taylor v. State, 710 N.E.2d 921, 924 (Ind. 1999) (citing Brooks v. State, 683 N.E.2d 574, 577 (Ind. 1997)). “A conviction in spite of a claim of self-defense will be reversed only if no reasonable person could say that the claim was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citing Lilly v. State, 506 N.E.2d 23, 24 (Ind. 1987)).

[10] When a defendant asserts self-defense,

the defendant must prove he was in a place where he had a right to be, “acted without fault,” and reasonably feared or apprehended death or great bodily harm. Miller, 720 N.E.2d at 699–700. The State must then negate at least one element beyond a reasonable doubt “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.” Lilly v. State, 506 N.E.2d 23, 24 (Ind. 1987).

Larkin, 173 N.E.3d at 670. “When a defendant alleges the State did not sufficiently rebut his self-defense claim, we do not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility,” and we “only look ‘to the evidence most favorable to the judgment.’ ” Larkin, 173 N.E.3d at 670 (quoting Miller, 720 N.E.2d at 699). We will affirm the conviction if the evidence and reasonable inference most favorable thereto “constitute substantial evidence of probative value sufficient to support the judgment.” Id. (quoting Miller, 720 N.E.2d at 699).

[11] Beamon contends the State did not present sufficient evidence to establish that he acted with fault or that he reasonably feared or apprehended death or great bodily injury. In response, the State argues that self-defense “is not codified as a defense to criminal mischief” and “specifically contemplates an attack by a person,” so it was not available to Beamon. Appellee's Br. at 8. We need not address the State's argument, however, because even if we assume arguendo that self-defense was available to Beamon and that he demonstrated all three elements necessary to claim self-defense, he has not established that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut at least one of those elements.

[12] Beamon's argument on appeal is essentially a request for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do, see Larkin, 173 N.E.3d at 670 (quoting Miller, 720 N.E.2d at 699). For instance, Beamon relies on his and Carter's testimony to show that Sandra possessed a knife and that Beamon struck her car for the purpose of distracting her. Carter and Beamon both testified that when Sandra went to her car, she grabbed a knife. Carter could not recall if she grabbed the knife before or after Beamon grabbed the baseball bat. Beamon testified that Sandra had the knife before he approached her car, and because she had the knife, he hit the hood of her car with the baseball bat to distract her while he got his things from her car. Neither Beamon nor Carter testified that they believed Sandra was going to harm either of them or their property with the knife or otherwise. Because there was no evidence that Beamon believed he was in harm or that his things were about to be damaged, there was no reason to defend himself.

[13] Not only does Beamon's evidence fail to present a sufficient claim for self-defense on the criminal mischief charge, the State's case-in-chief soundly refutes there was ever a need to defend himself. Chapman testified that he did not see Sandra with a knife. Sandra testified that she did not arm herself with a knife. In fact, Sandra claimed she “didn't even know [the knife] was in” her car, Tr. Vol. II at 123, and “never had a chance” to grab it, id. at 105. Both Chapman and Sandra testified that Beamon retrieved the knife from Sandra's car.

[14] It was for the jury to assess the credibility of Beamon, Carter, Chapman, and Sandra and to determine the weight of their testimony. See Larkin, 173 N.E.3d at 670 (quoting Miller, 720 N.E.2d at 699). We will not second guess the jury's judgment on these matters. See id. (quoting Miller, 720 N.E.2d at 699). Based on the foregoing, we cannot say the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut Beamon's claim of self-defense. We therefore affirm Beamon's conviction.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1).

2.   I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1).

3.   I.C. § 35-43-1-2(a).

Felix, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Foley, J., concur.