BROWN v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Denby Brown appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for battery resulting in bodily injury as a class A misdemeanor. He contends the State presented insufficient evidence to disprove his claim of self-defense. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The facts most favorable to the conviction reveal that in the afternoon on August 17, 2023, Ryan Taylor rode his bicycle to pick up medication from a nearby CVS Pharmacy. On his way home, he rode down Gilbert Street toward Brown's house. As he approached Brown's house, he saw Brown “in his backyard with his dog.” Transcript Volume II at 25. Taylor observed that Brown “had seen [him],” “threw [the dog] in the back door of his house,” and “came back” out to the front of the house. Id. at 26. Taylor “pulled [his] phone out ․ before [he] got in front of” the house to record “for [his]safety” “in case anything was going to happen.” Id. at 26-27. Taylor was “in fear for [his] life” because Brown had threatened him a few weeks earlier. Id. at 27. The threats stemmed from Taylor's use of a firepit in his own “backyard and the smoke ․ going through the neighborhood and ․ around [Brown's] house.” Id. at 28.

[3] As Taylor pulled his phone out to record, he observed Brown walking down the driveway “approaching the street which [was Taylor's] pathway home.” Id. at 32. Taylor “knew it was gonna be confrontation based off the prior incidents, so [he] slowed down ․ stopped [his] bike ․ [t]o basically just sustain less injuries if something was to happen and [he] was still moving.” Id. Brown knocked Taylor's phone out of his hand and started “attacking [Taylor] with his hands,” and, “after a couple strikes to the face, [Taylor] fell off [his] bicycle and sustained injuries to [his] leg.” Id. at 33. The strikes to the face caused pain, and Taylor's leg bled and became swollen. Taylor called the police, and emergency medical services checked his injuries. Brown was arrested. Following the altercation, on September 12, 2023, Brown obtained a protective order against Taylor.

[4] On August 18, 2023, the State charged Brown with battery resulting in bodily injury as a class A misdemeanor. The court held a bench trial on January 10, 2025. During trial, Taylor testified regarding the altercation, and the court admitted the video taken by Taylor on his cellphone into evidence over Brown's objection. The video showed Brown extend his middle finger on each hand and shout expletives as he walked down his driveway and into the street before striking Taylor. Brown testified that he felt threatened by Taylor recording him so he smacked Taylor's hand and phone away twice. Brown admitted that Taylor never entered onto his property, that he walked into the public street to confront Taylor, and that he initiated the physical contact when he smacked away Taylor's hand. Brown's daughter testified as to what she observed from inside the house, and Brown also introduced evidence of the protective order hearing held on September 12, 2023, following which he obtained a protective order against Taylor.

[5] At the conclusion of trial, the court found Brown guilty as charged. Specifically, the court found:

[Brown] did not act without fault, and as Indiana Code § 35-41-3-2 lays out, um, [ ] a person is not justified in using force, if 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.

Id. at 109-110. The court sentenced Brown to one year in jail with 361 days suspended to probation.

Discussion

[6] Brown challenges the sufficiency of the State's evidence disproving his claim of self-defense. A valid claim of defense of oneself or another person is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800-801 (Ind. 2002) (citing Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(a)). In order to prevail on such a 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. Id. (citing McEwen v. State, 695 N.E.2d 79, 90 (Ind. 1998)). 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. Id. 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. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 1999). If a defendant is convicted despite his claim of self-defense, the appellate court will reverse only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. Taylor v. State, 710 N.E.2d 921, 924 (Ind. 1999). A claim of self-defense is generally not available to a defendant who is the initial aggressor. Miller, 720 N.E.2d at 700.

[7] The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same as the standard for any sufficiency of the evidence claim. Sanders v. State, 704 N.E.2d 119, 123 (Ind. 1999). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. If there is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact, then the verdict will not be disturbed. Id.

[8] The record reveals that Brown was the initial aggressor and instigated the violence when he walked down his driveway and into the public street, struck Taylor's hand away twice, and struck Taylor in the face twice causing pain, which further resulted in Taylor falling off his bicycle and sustaining injuries. Moreover, there is no evidence that Brown had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm based upon Taylor's act of recording him. Under the circumstances, the State met its burden of presenting evidence that allowed the factfinder to reject Brown's self-defense claim. As there is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the trial court's conclusion, we will not disturb the conviction.

[9] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Brown's conviction for battery as a class A misdemeanor.

[10] Affirmed.

Brown, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.