Taylor E. Bean, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Following a jury trial, Taylor Bean appeals her conviction for battery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 5 felony. She argues that the State failed to rebut her claim of self-defense. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Issue

[2] Bean raises several issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the State failed to rebut Bean's claim of self-defense such that insufficient evidence supports Bean's battery conviction.

Facts

[3] On August 24, 2023, Olivia Labare made a public post on TikTok about her boyfriend, and Bean posted a comment asking Olivia if her boyfriend knew she was cheating on him. Neither Olivia nor Bean knew each other personally, but Bean had heard about Olivia from others. Olivia sent Bean a private message stating, “[Y]ou don't know anything ab[out] who i'm w[ith] or when i'm w[ith] my b[oyfriend] ․ so please stfu weirdo[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 27. Olivia's friend, Melany Smith, also sent a private message to Bean. Bean replied to Olivia, levying insults and stating, “[N]either of you are worth my mf time[.]” Id. at 28.

[4] Melany's message to Bean stated, “[I]dk who tf u are but if u have something to say I will send u my address right now[.]” Id. at 32. Bean replied, insulting Melany and stating, “I'm not about to deal with no child thinking she's something and like she's gonna come beat my a**.” Id. Sometime later that evening, Olivia posted a screenshot of Bean's TikTok page on Olivia's snapchat story and wrote, “[S]omeone please tell who who tf this is[.]” Id. at 30.

[5] Bean then messaged Melany over Facebook Messenger. Bean claimed that Olivia had cheated on Bean's friend with Olivia's current boyfriend. Bean sent a picture of the friend's truck in Bean's garage. Bean stated, “So before we get all ready to rumble. Y[’]all can quit lyin[g].” Id. at 35. Melany sent a message to Bean early the next morning, stating, “[I]’m hearing more s**t about u and I really don't know how u show ur face in public,” to which Bean did not reply. Id. at 36. Melany sent another message the next day, stating, “[M]essage me back p***y[.]” Id.

[6] A few hours later, on August 25, 2023, Olivia and Melany were driving and stopped on the road in front of Bean's house, which the two recognized from the photograph Bean sent as a house near where Melany lived. Bean, who lived at the house with her partner, Lane Russo, and her two children, was in the front yard mowing the lawn when Olivia and Melany arrived.

[7] The evidence most favorable to the verdict is that Olivia stopped in front of Bean's house because Olivia “wanted to have a civil conversation and show [Bean] proof that [Olivia] wasn't cheating on [her] boyfriend[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 155. Olivia waved at Bean, and Bean waved back because she thought Olivia was someone else.

[8] Olivia was standing on the road and attempted to show Bean photographs on Olivia's phone to prove that she was not cheating on her boyfriend. Bean yelled at Olivia to “leave [Bean's] property.” Id. at 157. Bean then put the lawn mower in park and walked onto the road toward Olivia. Bean “shoved” Olivia into the car, “dragg[ed]” her, and “threw” her down onto the road. Id. Olivia landed on her shoulder and broke her collarbone. Melany then got out of the car and began to fight with Bean, but Lane came from the yard, “pulled Melany off and threw her down[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 158. Olivia and Melany drove to the hospital and contacted law enforcement. Bean was arrested later that night.

[9] After the incident, Bean replied to Melany on Facebook Messenger, stating, “[A]sk [O]livia how that road tasted for me.” Ex. Vol. IV p. 38. Bean also posted a photograph of herself on TikTok, and she tagged Olivia and Melany. Bean wrote to Olivia, “[H]ow'd the road taste? Pulled up on the wrong mf b***h. I warned you multiple times to leave. Maybe listen next time and you wouldn't be tasting rocks rn.” Id. at 10. Bean wrote to Melany, “[U]r next pookie. [W]ho's the p***y??” Id.

[10] On September 5, 2023, the State charged Bean with battery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 5 felony. The trial court held a jury trial in December 2024. Olivia and Melany testified that Bean made physical contact with Olivia first by shoving her into the car. Lane testified but claimed only that he saw the three women “cat fighting and wrestling around.” Tr. Vol. III p. 46.

[11] Bean testified and claimed that she acted in self-defense. According to Bean, Olivia got out of her car and walked near the edge of Bean's yard. Bean told Olivia to leave and that Bean's children were at the house, but Olivia refused to leave. The two moved toward one another until they were approximately two feet apart at the edge of the yard, and Olivia “point[ed] her finger” in Bean's face and “jumped.” Id. at 84-85. Bean felt that her life and her children's lives were threatened, and Bean's “fight or flight kicked in and mama bear kicked in”; Bean shoved Olivia to get her away from the yard. Id. at 85. Olivia then punched Bean in the cheek and grabbed her shirt to “try to throw [Bean] down,” but Bean grabbed Olivia's shirt, and they “both went down[.]” Id. at 85-86.

[12] Regarding the social media messages, Bean claimed that she was not interested in fighting; she believed that Olivia and Melany were trying to fight her because Melany said she was “finding things out about” Bean and called Bean a “p***y.” Id. at 76. Bean indicated that the three would “rumble” as a “joke” in reference to a televised wrestling entertainment program, the “W.W.E.”¹ Id. at 74. Bean further testified that Olivia “got what she deserved.” Id. at 93.

[13] The jury found Bean guilty as charged. The trial court entered judgment of conviction and sentenced Bean to five years, with three years suspended to probation. Of the two executed years, five months were to be served in the Miami County Jail with the remaining nineteen months to be served on home detention through community corrections. Bean now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[14] Bean argues that the evidence is insufficient to support her battery conviction because the State failed to rebut her claim of self-defense. We disagree.

[15] “Self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.” Stewart v. State, 167 N.E.3d 367, 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Gammons v. State, 148 N.E.3d 301, 304 (Ind. 2020)), trans. denied. The State bears the burden of disproving the defendant's self-defense claim, either “by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense—or by simply relying on the sufficiency of its evidence in chief.” Id. (citing Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 1999)). If a defendant is convicted despite her claim of self-defense, “an appellate court will reverse only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citing Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800-01 (Ind. 2002)).

[16] The self-defense statute, Indiana Code Section 35-41-3-2, provides in relevant part:

(c) 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․

* * * * *

(g) Notwithstanding subsection[ ] (c) ․, a person is not justified in using force if:

* * * * *

(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.

[17] Additionally, even if the defendant's fear is reasonable, the defendant's use of force must be “ ‘proportionate to the urgency of the situation.’ ” Larkin v. State, 173 N.E.3d 662, 670 (Ind. 2021) (quoting 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.” Pinkston v. State, 821 N.E.2d 830, 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Hollowell, 707 N.E.2d ay 1021), trans. denied.

[18] We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Bean's claim of self-defense. Although it is clear that Olivia, Melany, and Bean all contributed to the antagonism, the jury could find from the evidence that Bean was the initial aggressor, did not reasonably fear unlawful force from Olivia, and used more force than necessary under the circumstances. The evidence presented shows that Bean was the initial aggressor because Olivia testified that she was standing in the road and attempting to show Bean photographs when Bean shoved her into the car and threw her down onto the road. See Linebeck v. State, 542 N.E.2d 195, 197-98 (Ind. 1989) (holding that evidence supported finding that defendant was the initial aggressor).

[19] As for the reasonable fear element, after the fight, Bean teased Olivia on social media and told Melany, “[U]r next pookie. [W]ho's the p***y??” Ex. Vol. IV p. 10. Bean also sent a rude Facebook message about the fight to Melany directly. See Orozco v. State, 146 N.E.3d 1038, 1041-42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (analyzing defendant's post-fight behavior to determine whether his claimed fear of harm was reasonable), trans. denied. Further, although Bean claims she was protecting her children, her children were inside the house and neither Olivia nor Melany threatened them.

[20] Lastly, even if Bean did reasonably fear unlawful force from Olivia, the jury could conclude that Bean used more force than necessary by shoving Olivia into the car and dragging her to the ground.

[21] Bean argues that she did not wish to fight and that Olivia struck her first. The jury, however, was not obligated to credit Bean's version of events. See Fitzgerald v. State, 26 N.E.3d 105, 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (rejecting defendant's self-defense claim and noting that fact-finder “was not obligated to believe [defendant's] self-serving testimony”); McCullough v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1135, 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (noting that, where defendant argued that he acted in self-defense, jury “was under no obligation to credit [defendant's] evidence”), trans. denied.² Thus, sufficient evidence supports Bean's conviction.

Conclusion

[22] The State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Bean's claim of self-defense; thus, sufficient evidence supports Bean's conviction for battery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 5 felony. Accordingly, we affirm.

[23] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   WWE stands for World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. McCullough v. World Wrestling Ent., Inc., 2016 WL 3962779, *1 (D. Conn. July 21, 2016).

2.   Because the jury could find that: (1) Bean was the initial aggressor, (2) she did not reasonably fear unlawful force from Olivia, and (3) she used more force than necessary, it is immaterial whether Bean satisfied the other elements of a self-defense claim, such as being in a place where she had a right to be. See, e.g., Turner v. State, 183 N.E.3d 346, 354 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (noting that one requirement of a self-defense claim is that the defendant “was in a place where he or she had a right to be”) (citing Dean v. State, 432 N.E.2d 40, 42-43 (Ind. 1982)).

Tavitas, Judge.

Judges Vaidik and Felix concur. Vaidik, J., and Felix, J., concur.