V.J., Appellant-Respondent, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] V.J. appeals his adjudication for battery resulting in serious bodily injury, an act that would be a Level 5 felony if committed by an adult. V.J. claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication because he was acting in self-defense when he committed the offense.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On August 30, 2024, V.J. and other sixth graders at Jackson Middle School in South Bend were in the cafeteria eating lunch. Boys and girls were seated on opposite sides of the cafeteria because it was the start of the school year, and the atmosphere was “chaotic.” Transcript Vol. II at 71.

[4] At some point, V.J. and two of his friends walked over to the girls’ side of the cafeteria and started talking with some of them. Less than a minute later, Zhane Reid, a school maintenance employee, walked up to V.J. and the other boys and told them to return to their side of the room. At the same time, Donald O'Brien, a school security officer, began dismissing the girls from the cafeteria. Rather than walking back to the boys’ area, V.J. and the others walked in front of O'Brien and proceeded to the cafeteria exit. O'Brien told the group to “come back to the cafeteria.” Id. at 53. The boys ignored O'Brien and continued walking. O'Brien followed V.J. and his friends outside the cafeteria, telling them—at least five times—that they had to go back because they had not been dismissed. Once in the hallway, O'Brien followed closely behind V.J. and unintentionally bumped into him. O'Brien then told the boys that they needed to go to the principal's office because they disobeyed his orders. V.J. and the other two boys turned around, at which time O'Brien reached for his walkie talkie to call for assistance. Before he could call for help, V.J. shoved O'Brien with both hands, causing him to step backwards. V.J. then punched O'Brien twice on the left side of his face. After being hit, O'Brien felt like he “was not in the right mind” and “wasn't all there.” Id. at 75, 79.

[5] When O'Brien attempted to walk past V.J. toward the administration office, V.J. punched O'Brien in the face three more times. At that point, Reid stepped in and noticed that O'Brien was falling towards the ground and “losing consciousness.” Id. at 94. Reid then walked behind V.J., “bear hugged” him, and stopped the altercation. Id. at 93-94. Reid called a school nurse to examine O'Brien because he looked “weak and dazed.” Id. at 95. O'Brien did not remember anything after the first punches and explained that everything was “fuzzy.” Id. at 84. He also testified that he did not know “where, [or] what [he] was doing.” Id.

[6] Following the altercation, O'Brien went to the hospital where medical personnel cleaned up blood that was leaking from his eye area and stitched the wound. O'Brien was subsequently diagnosed with broken facial bones that required surgery. O'Brien was also prescribed oxycodone and acetaminophen for pain. Following the surgery, O'Brien was only able to eat soft foods for awhile, the left side of his face was constantly in pain, and he experienced total numbness in the area where V.J. hit him. O'Brien’s physicians told him that healing would require “up to six months to a year.” Id. at 69.

[7] On September 5, 2024, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging that V.J. was a delinquent child for committing the delinquent offense of battery resulting in moderate bodily injury. It subsequently amended the petition and added a count for battery resulting in serious bodily injury.¹

[8] At the fact-finding hearing on February 3, 2025, V.J. testified that he acted in self-defense during the altercation because “O'Brien was angry․ and [he] feared that he was going to be struck by a grown man.” Id. at 121-23. The trial court found that V.J. committed battery resulting in serious bodily injury and dismissed the count of battery resulting in moderate bodily injury in light of double jeopardy concerns. The trial court determined that the State had disproved V.J.’s self-defense claim and concluded that O'Brien’s injuries satisfied the definition of serious bodily injury.

[9] V.J. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] V.J. argues that his adjudication must be set aside because the State failed to disprove his claim of self-defense. V.J. contends that he did not initiate the altercation and that he hit O'Brien because he was fearful of bodily injury in light of O'Brien’s “angry pursuit of him.” Appellant's Brief at 16.

[11] 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 issue. Turner v. State, 253 N.E.3d 526, 533 (Ind. 2025). We do not reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility, and we only look to the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Id. We will affirm the defendant's conviction if there is evidence, including reasonable inferences, that supports the judgment. Id. And 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 by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. Taylor v. State, 710 N.E.2d 921, 924 (Ind. 1999).

[12] A valid claim of defense of oneself or another person is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Gammons v. State, 148 N.E.3d 301, 304 (Ind. 2020) (citing Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2). 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. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800-01 (Ind. 2002). (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. (emphasis added). 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, 700 (Ind. 1999).

[13] A claim of self-defense is generally not available to a defendant who is the initial aggressor “unless [he] withdraws from the encounter and communicates ․ the intent to do so.” I.C. § 35-41-3-2(g); see also Kimbrough v. State, 911 N.E.2d 621, 636 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (evidence of defendant's willing participation in a shoving match that escalated without any attempt to withdraw was sufficient to rebut self-defense claim). In short, a person who provokes, instigates, or participates willingly in the violence does not act without fault. Shoultz v. State, 995 N.E.2d 647, 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

[14] In this case, V.J. initiated the physical altercation. Specifically, the evidence established that O'Brien repeatedly told V.J. and his friends that they could not leave the cafeteria until they were dismissed. V.J., however, ignored that directive and walked out. When O'Brien followed V.J. out of the cafeteria, he told V.J. to go to the principal's office. In response, V.J. shoved O'Brien and punched him twice in the face, knocking him nearly unconscious. As O'Brien began to walk toward the administration office, V.J. punched him three more times, further escalating the altercation. V.J. did not stop the attack until Reid stepped in and “bear hugged” him. Transcript Vol. II at 93-94, 99.

[15] As a result of the incident, O'Brien suffered constant and severe pain and underwent surgery for fractured facial bones. Following the surgery, O'Brien was unable to eat normally, and his face remained numb. O'Brien’s physicians told him that it would take “six months to a year” before he would completely heal from the injuries that V.J. inflicted. Id. at 69.

[16] Ultimately, V.J.’s argument is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do. Based on the foregoing, the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut V.J.’s self-defense claim, and the evidence supported the adjudication for battery causing serious bodily injury.

[17] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In accordance with Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1) and (g)(1), the State was required to prove that V.J. knowingly or intentionally touched O'Brien in a rude, insolent, or angry manner that resulted in serious bodily injury. Serious bodily injury includes a “bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes: (1) serious permanent disfigurement; (2) unconsciousness; (3) extreme pain [or] (4) permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.” Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-292.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Judges May and Foley concur. May, J. and Foley, J., concur.