COLE v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Robert Cole was convicted of Class B misdemeanor battery for punching his roommate, Joshua Cox, in the face. On appeal, Cole argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to rebut his claims of self-defense and defense of dwelling. Finding Cole never raised those affirmative defenses at trial, but the State nonetheless presented sufficient evidence to rebut them, we affirm.

Facts

[2] In 2023, Cox rented a bedroom in Cole's home for $40 per week. By agreement, Cox would pay Cole each Sunday or Monday, depending on when Cox cashed his paycheck. One Sunday night, however, Cole approached Cox outside the home and began “cussing” and “yelling” that the rent was due immediately. Tr. Vol. II, p. 50. Cox “begged and pleaded” with Cole to “calm down,” promising to pay Cole the next day. Id. at 51. But Cole remained “[v]ery aggressive.” Id.

[3] During the confrontation, Cole repeatedly demanded that Cox give him a handgun to satisfy Cox's rent obligation. Cole also told Cox he was not allowed to enter their shared home and could either leave or fight. When Cox calmly approached the home's doorway, Cole “push[ed]” Cox to block him from entering. Id. Cox, however, was able to squeeze past Cole and into the house. Cox then proceeded to his bedroom, and when he stopped to open his bedroom door, Cole punched him in the face.

[4] At some point during the confrontation, Cole called the police and reported a “disturbance.” Id. at 87. He also informed the dispatcher that Cox was a felon in possession of a handgun. The police officer who responded to the call initially treated the matter as a civil dispute. But after learning that Cole punched Cox in the face, the officer placed Cole under arrest. The State later charged Cole with battery resulting in bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor.

[5] At the ensuing bench trial, Cole's defense counsel argued that Cox lied about being punched to distract the responding police officer from Cole's allegation that Cox was a felon in possession of a handgun. Cox admitted that, on the night of the incident, he was on probation for a firearm offense and was prohibited from possessing a firearm. Cox also acknowledged that he had since been convicted of another firearm offense. But Cox denied that he possessed a handgun—either on his person or in his bedroom—on the night of the incident.

[6] When asked about Cole's punch, Cox testified that it was painful but did not cause any bruising or swelling. He also described his memory as “foggy” about where exactly the punch landed. Id. at 67. The trial court ultimately concluded that the State failed to prove battery as Class A misdemeanor but had proven the offense as a Class B misdemeanor. The court later sentenced Cole to 20 days in jail for that lesser included offense.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Cole appeals his battery conviction, arguing that the State presented insufficient evidence to rebut his claims of self-defense and defense of dwelling. As the State points out, however, Cole never raised those affirmative defenses at trial. See generally Stubbers v. State, 190 N.E.3d 424, 430 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (recognizing self-defense as affirmative defense); Cupello v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1122, 1124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (recognizing defense of dwelling as same). “Affirmative defenses cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Lafary v. Lafary, 476 N.E.2d 155, 159 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). Therefore, Cole's appellate arguments are waived. Notwithstanding this waiver, the evidence presented at trial does not support Cole's claims of self-defense and defense of dwelling.

I. Standard of Review

[8] Self-defense and defense of dwelling are generally “analogous.” Gomez v. State, 56 N.E.3d 697, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “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.” King v. State, 61 N.E.3d 1275, 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “The State may meet this burden 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.

[9] We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense the same as we do for any claim of insufficient evidence. Ervin v. State, 114 N.E.3d 888, 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). That is, “[w]e neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses,” and “[w]e consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the trial court's decision.” Id. “If a defendant is convicted despite his claim of self-defense, we will reverse only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated beyond a reasonable doubt.” Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800-01 (Ind. 2002).

II. Self-Defense Claim

[10] Indiana's self-defense statute provides, in pertinent part: “A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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(c).

[11] The State contends it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Cole did not reasonably believe Cox threatened him with the imminent use of unlawful force. We agree. The evidence presented at trial showed that Cox was calm during the entire confrontation with Cole and that Cox kept his hands behind his back as he squeezed past Cole and into the house.

[12] Cole claims otherwise, asserting that Cox was “armed or had access to a gun in his room.” Appellant's Br., p. 10. The evidence, however, does not support this assertion. Cox specifically denied having a firearm on his person or in his room on the night of the incident. And even if Cox possessed a firearm, the record contains no evidence that Cox brandished or otherwise threatened Cole with it.

[13] For these reasons, Cole's self-defense claim fails.

III. Defense-of-Dwelling Claim

[14] Indiana's defense-of-dwelling statute provides, in pertinent part: “A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and 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.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(d) (cleaned up).

[15] The State contends the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Cole did not reasonably believe Cox was unlawfully entering Cole's home. Again, we agree. The evidence presented at trial showed that, at the time of the incident, Cox was renting a bedroom in Cole's home for $40 per week and, therefore, had a right to enter.

[16] Cole argues that “[Cox] did not have the right to enter that property armed illegally with a weapon or for the purpose of retrieving that weapon.” Appellant's Br., p. 11. But Cole points to no evidence that the terms of his and Cox's rental agreement prohibited Cox from possessing a firearm inside the home they shared. And the evidence shows that Cox, in fact, did not possess a firearm on the night of the incident.

[17] For these reasons, Cole's defense-of-dwelling claim also fails.

[18] Affirmed.

Weissmann, Judge.

May, J., and Scheele, J., concur.