MURRAY v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] On the morning of April 28, 2023, Malcolm Xavier Murray (Murray) encountered Antonio Wilson (Wilson) at an Indianapolis bus station and the two exchanged heated words. After Murray threw the first punch at Wilson and knocked out one of his teeth, Murray spit on him and then tussled with Wilson until security broke up the altercation. Murray was later arrested for his role as the instigator of the fight. At his bench trial, Murray claimed he was acting in self-defense. The trial court found Murray guilty of Level 6 felony battery resulting in moderate bodily injury ¹ and of Class B misdemeanor battery by bodily waste.² The trial court sentenced Murray to two years executed on home detention. Murray appeals, arguing that the State produced insufficient evidence to rebut his self-defense claim. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 28, 2023, Wilson was working as a street ambassador ³ for the City of Indianapolis, when he encountered Murray, wearing his Wing Stop uniform, at the Julia Carson Transit Center (Transit Center), Indianapolis's downtown public transit hub. Murray, who Wilson recognized from an encounter the day before,⁴ used “profane language” at him. Transcript Vol. 2 at 47. Not believing Murray would “do anything to [him],” Wilson walked up to Murray. Id. Murray hit him in the mouth, “backpedal[ed]” away from Wilson, and then spit in his face. Id. Wilson ran after Murray and the pair “tussled” until security broke up the fight. Id. Murray's initial blow knocked out one of Wilson's lower teeth which ultimately required him to undergo more extensive dental work. Although both men acknowledged “tussl[ing],” their stories differed as to who threw the first punch. Id. After the attack, Wilson reported the incident to his supervisor, who contacted the police. Later that morning, Wilson went to Wing Stop and spoke to the manager, who assisted police by identifying Murray. On May 16, 2023, Wilson again met with police officers at the police station and identified Murray as his attacker from a photo lineup consisting of six photos.

[3] In June 2023, the State charged Murray with Count I: Battery Resulting in Bodily Injury, a Class A misdemeanor; Count II: Battery by Bodily Waste, a Class B misdemeanor; and Count III: Battery Resulting in Moderate Bodily Injury, a Level 6 felony. At a bench trial held on June 18, 2024, Murray testified in his own defense. Murray claimed that on his way to work at Wing Stop on April 28, 2023, he encountered Wilson at the Transit Center. Murray said Wilson was “just standing there looking at me” until Wilson asked, “[w]hat's all that s*** you was [sic] talking about[,]” referring to their encounter the day before. Id. at 68. Then Wilson “ran towards [him]” in a way that Murray perceived as threatening and the two men “got to fightin[g].” Id. Murray testified he “was try[ing] to get away from [Wilson]” but that he was “go[ing] to fight back[.]” Id. He stated they fell on the ground and Wilson hit him prompting Murray to return blows before security guards intervened. Murray claimed he suffered a bruised knee when they fell and “might have had a couple of lumps on [his] face[.]” Id. at 72.

[4] After the tussle, Murray testified he walked to work at Wing Stop. Shortly after he arrived, Murray saw Wilson “knock[ing] on the window[,]” but a manager handled the situation and Murray and Wilson did not interact again. Id. at 69.

[5] Finding Wilson's testimony to be credible, the trial court determined the State had met its burden of proof on all charges. See Tr. at 82 (where the trial court stated, “I find Mr. Wilson is a credible witness.”). The trial court entered judgment of conviction on Count II: Battery by Bodily Waste, a Class B misdemeanor and Count III: Battery Resulting in Moderate Bodily Injury, a Level 6 felony, and “vacate[d]” Count I: Battery Resulting in Bodily Injury, a Class A misdemeanor. Id. The trial court sentenced Murray to serve sixteen days at the Marion County Jail on Count II and two years executed on home detention on Count III, to be served consecutively. Murray appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Murray argues that the evidence “as to the charged offenses” was insufficient “to rebut [Murray's] self-defense claims.” Appellant's Br. at 4. “The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same as the standard for any sufficiency of the evidence claim.” Stewart v. State, 167 N.E.3d 367, 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. “Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims trigger a deferential standard of review in which we ‘neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the [fact-finder].’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), reh'g. denied, cert. denied, 586 U.S. 1090 (2019)). In conducting this review, “we consider only the evidence that supports the [fact-finder's] determination, not evidence that might undermine it.” Id. We affirm the conviction “unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.” Sutton v. State, 167 N.E.3d 800, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007)).

[7] Murray contends he acted in self-defense during his altercation with Wilson. In this appeal, Murray argues the evidence the State used to rebut his self-defense claim was insufficient for him to be convicted of battery. “A defendant can raise self-defense as a justification for an otherwise criminal act.” Larkin v. State, 173 N.E.3d 662, 670 (Ind. 2021) (citing Indiana Code section 35-41-3-2), reh'g denied. 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.” I.C. section 35-41-3-2(c).

[8] To prevail on a self-defense claim, “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 (3) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.” Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002). When the defendant's claim finds support in the evidence, the State assumes the “burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements.” Id. “The State ‘may meet this burden by rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the person did not act in self-defense, or by relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief.’ ” Turner v. State, 183 N.E.3d 346, 354 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting Hall v. State, 166 N.E.3d 406, 413 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021)) (quoting Cole v. State, 28 N.E.3d 1126, 1137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)), trans. denied. Whether the State has met its burden is a question for the finder of fact. See Stewart, 167 N.E.3d at 376. “We will reverse a conviction only if no reasonable person could say the State overcame the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” Larkin, 173 N.E.3d at 670.

[9] Here, neither party disputes that Murray satisfied the first element presented in Wilson, that Murray was in a “place where he had a right to be,” since he was in the public Transit Center and there is no evidence in the record to suggest he could not be there. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800. As for the other two Wilson elements, Wilson and Murray's versions contradicted each other, leaving it to the fact-finder, here the trial judge, to determine whom she found credible. The trial court made a credibility determination and, viewing the facts in light of that determination, Murray instigated the violence. Even though Wilson testified that he chased Murray down after he was struck, Murray's instigation or provocation of the violence by striking and spitting on Wilson rebuts Murray's self-defense argument.⁵ In Bryant, our Court found sufficient evidence to rebut Bryant's claim of self-defense for a battery conviction where the victim testified that Bryant instigated the violence when he threw the first punch. Bryant v. State, 984 N.E.2d 240, 251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

[10] On appeal, Murray invites us to accept his own version of events. Although Murray argues “the record in this case clearly supports [his] self[-]defense claim without regard to a reweighing of the evidence[,]” reweighing the evidence is exactly what Murray asks us to do. See Appellant's Br. at 11. Murray's claim of self-defense finds its only support in his own self-serving testimony which the trial court elected not to adopt. Murray also cites Washington v. State in support of his argument that courts should use an objective and subjective standard when evaluating a defendant's claim that force was necessary to prevent bodily harm. See Appellant's Br. at 11; see also Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342, 349 (Ind. 2013). Having provoked the altercation, however, it is not objectively reasonable for Murray to claim, even in retrospect, that he believed he needed to use force against Wilson to defend or protect himself, nor was such force a necessary, proportional response to an imminent threat. Without reweighing the evidence, we are not persuaded that Murray's testimony leads to the inextricable conclusion that the evidence was insufficient for his convictions.

Conclusion

[11] The evidence was sufficient to rebut Murray's claim of self-defense and to convict Murray of battery by bodily waste and battery resulting in moderate bodily injury.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(e)(1).

2.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(2).

3.   Wilson testified that his duties as a street ambassador were “to help people navigate the downtown area, visitors, tourists, clean the streets, lay down mulch, ․ public aid, stuff like that.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 42-43.

4.   Wilson did not testify to this encounter at trial. The probable cause affidavit stated that Wilson told police officers that the day before the attack, “a black male, unknown to him at the time, sat near him and began a conversation. Mr. Wilson stated that he did not respond to the black male, which upset the black male. Mr. Wilson stated the black male then began to verbally threaten him with bodily harm. Mr. Wilson stated that security and a Transit Center employee intervened and ordered the black male to leave the premises.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 22. Murray testified at trial that on April 27, 2023, he was waiting for a bus at the Transit Center when he approached Wilson to ask a question about finding a car for sale. Murray testified that Wilson said, “[g]et the F away from me. I don't know you,” and affirmed his counsel's characterization that Wilson's demeanor was “a little bit threatening[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 66-67.

5.   To rebut a self-defense claim under the Wilson elements test, the State need only rebut one of the three elements. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800. Here, the State demonstrated that Murray did not meet the second element as Murray instigated, provoked, or participated willingly in the violence. Therefore, we need not analyze Murray's claim under the third Wilson element.

DeBoer, Judge.

May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.