TUCKER v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Michael Leron Tucker (“Tucker”) appeals, following a jury trial, his conviction for Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.¹ Tucker argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because he had acted in self-defense. Concluding that there was sufficient evidence, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there was sufficient evidence supporting Tucker's domestic battery conviction.

Facts

[3] The facts most favorable to the judgment reveal that in April 2024, Tucker and Y.L. (“Y.L.”) had been in a relationship and living together for five years. During the afternoon of April 20, 2024, Tucker and Y.L. got into an argument over something Y.L. had told a third party. While Tucker was on his porch, the third party informed Tucker that Y.L. had disclosed something to her, and Tucker told Y.L. that she had “f***ed up[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 74). Tucker and Y.L. began drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana.

[4] As the afternoon progressed, Y.L. could tell that Tucker was getting “[m]ore aggressive” and “[m]ore mad” at her. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 76). Y.L. tried to avoid the topic. Tucker made comments about wanting to find his gun, and Y.L. hid it. Later in the evening, Tucker left the house to go to the liquor store. When he returned, Tucker became “even more aggressive[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 76). Tucker continued to ask Y.L. about why she had disclosed something to the third party and told Y.L. that she had to get out. As the argument progressed, Tucker also called Y.L. a b****, told Y.L. that he “should beat [her] ass[,]” and told Y.L. that he should “kill [her.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 78). During the argument, Y.L., who was frustrated, repeatedly slammed the front door. This caused part of the door's window to fall on Y.L., and Y.L. grabbed the window.

[5] While Tucker and Y.L. were arguing in the living room, Tucker struck Y.L. on the face with an open hand. Y.L. went to the bedroom, grabbed her pepper spray, and went back to the living room to begin gathering some of her belongings. The argument continued, and Tucker got “all up on” Y.L. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 82). Tucker struck Y.L. again and “reached for [Y.L.’s] neck.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 82). In response, Y.L. pepper sprayed Tucker. Tucker then punched Y.L. on the forehead, “wail[ed] on” Y.L.’s head, took the pepper spray, and sprayed it on Y.L. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 84).

[6] After the fight had ended, both Tucker and Y.L. washed the pepper spray from their faces. Y.L. called the police, and multiple police officers arrived at the house around midnight. An Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer (“the police officer”) arrived on the scene and spoke to Y.L. while she received medical attention. Y.L. had an injury on her head and an injury on her hand. The police officers photographed Y.L.’s injuries. The police officers arrested Tucker, and he told the police officer that Y.L. had pepper sprayed him “out of nowhere” when he had asked her to leave and that he had “no idea why police” had arrived. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 114).

[7] The State charged Tucker with Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. The trial court held a jury trial in August 2025. Y.L. testified that Tucker had been really upset with her and that she had been scared. Y.L. also testified that the knot on her forehead “got bigger the next day” and that the injury to her hand was from when Tucker “snatched the mace” from her. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 91). During Y.L.’s testimony, the State admitted photos of her injuries taken after the police officers had arrived at the house.

[8] Tucker's theory of defense was that Y.L. had falsely reported that Tucker had battered her, that Y.L.’s injuries were from the front door's window falling on her, and that Y.L.’s story was inconsistent. Tucker did not assert the defense of self-defense at trial. Consequently, the trial court did not instruct the jury on self-defense.

[9] At the conclusion of the jury trial, the jury found Tucker guilty of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and not guilty of Class A misdemeanor battery causing bodily injury. The trial court sentenced Tucker to 360 days, with 350 days suspended to probation.

[10] Tucker now appeals.

Decision

[11] Tucker argues that there was insufficient evidence supporting his Class A misdemeanor domestic battery conviction. Specifically, he argues that the State failed to rebut his claim of self-defense. However, our review of the record reveals that Tucker never raised the affirmative defense of self-defense at trial. See Stubbers v. State, 190 N.E.3d 424, 430 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (recognizing self-defense as affirmative defense). Further, “[a]ffirmative defenses cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Lafary v. Lafary, 476 N.E.2d 155, 159 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). As a result, we need not review the record to determine whether the State failed to disprove a defense that Tucker failed to argue at trial. Therefore, Tucker has waived his self-defense argument on appeal.

[12] We will, however, review Tucker's general contention that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. “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 jury.” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (cleaned up). “A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (cleaned up). “In conducting that review, we consider only the evidence that supports the jury's determination, not evidence that might undermine it.” Id.

[13] Indiana Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1) provides that “a person who knowingly or intentionally ․ touches a family or household member in a rude, insolent, or angry manner ․ commits domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor.” “A conviction can be sustained on only the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even when that witness is the victim.” Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012).

[14] Here, the evidence presented during the jury trial is sufficient to support Tucker's Class A misdemeanor domestic battery conviction. Y.L. testified that Tucker struck her multiple times. See Bailey, 979 N.E.2d at 135. Further, in his brief, Tucker acknowledges that he “struck [Y.L.]” (Tucker's Br. 7). Ultimately, Tucker's argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do. See Hancz-Barron, 235 N.E.3d at 1244. There is sufficient evidence to support Tucker's Class A misdemeanor domestic battery conviction.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Indiana Code § 35-42-2-1.3.

Pyle, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Mathias, J., concur.