Jonathan Michael Hankins, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jonathan Michael Hankins, (“Hankins”) was convicted after a bench trial of battery ¹ as a Class B misdemeanor and was sentenced to thirty days executed. He appeals his conviction, arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of defense of property. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 30, 2022, Susan Kammerer ² (“Kammerer”) and her teenage granddaughter, K.A., went to Hankins's property to confront Hankins after Kammerer had observed bruising on her daughter D.A.’s face. D.A. was in a relationship with Hankins at the time. Once Kammerer and K.A. arrived at Hankins's property, they approached the door of the camper where he lived and knocked on the door. Kammerer told Hankins that “he needs to keep his f'ing [sic] hands off [her] daughter” but did not threaten him. Tr. Vol. II p. 10. Hankins responded that he wanted to tell her his “side of the story,” to which Kammerer responded that she did not “want to hear no side stories.” Id. Kammerer again reiterated that Hankins needed to “keep [his] hands off” her daughter. Id.

[3] Hankins asked Kammerer and K.A. to leave his property, and they turned around to go back to their vehicle. K.A. returned to the vehicle, but Kammerer, who was sixty-four at the time, walked slower than K.A. Hankins followed Kammerer and K.A. as they walked to their vehicle, and as Kammerer reached the vehicle, Hankins hit her in the back of the head. Kammerer described the blow to her head as “a big fist right in the back of my head. I felt it. It wasn't a slap. It wasn't, he hit me. Id. at 11. Kammerer got inside the vehicle and told K.A. to call the police. Kammerer and K.A. went to a bait store down the road from Hankins's property and called the police to report the incident.

[4] On October 3, 2022, the State charged Hankins with Level 6 felony strangulation, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, and Class B misdemeanor battery. On April 8, 2025, the State filed a motion to dismiss the strangulation and domestic battery counts, which was granted. Hankins waived his right to a jury trial, and the case proceeded to a bench trial on May 28, 2025. During the trial, Hankins testified and argued that he only hit Kammerer in defense of his property. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found Hankins guilty of Class B misdemeanor battery. The trial court sentenced Hankins to thirty days executed. Hankins now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Hankins argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his defense of property claim. “A claim of defense of property is analogous to a claim of self-defense.” Gomez v. State, 56 N.E.3d 697, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). When a defendant challenges whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense or defense of property, the standard of review remains the same as for any sufficiency of the evidence claim. Turner v. State, 253 N.E.3d 526, 533 (Ind. 2025) (citing Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 699 (Ind. 1999)). We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility and only look to the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Larkin v. State, 173 N.E.3d 662, 667 (Ind. 2021). We will affirm if the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom constitute substantial evidence of probative value sufficient to support the judgment. Id. “We will reverse a conviction only if no reasonable person could say the State overcame the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 670.

[6] Here, Hankins was convicted of Class B misdemeanor battery. In order to convict him of that offense, the State was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally touched another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1). Under Indiana Code section 35-41-3-2(d), a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that “the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling [or] curtilage ․” When a defendant raises a claim of defense of property and such defense finds support in the evidence, the State bears the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements. King v. State, 61 N.E.3d 1275, 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. “The State may meet this burden by rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief.” Id.

[7] The evidence most favorable to the judgment established that Kammerer went to Hankins's property to confront him about bruising on her daughter's face but did not threaten him. When Hankins asked Kammerer and K.A. to leave his property, they began to walk toward their vehicle. K.A. walked straight back to the vehicle, but Kammerer, who was older, walked back to the vehicle at a slower pace. Hankins followed Kammerer to the vehicle, and as she approached the vehicle, Hankins hit her in the back of the head. This evidence was sufficient to rebut Hankins's claim that his use of force was reasonable and necessary to terminate Kammerer's entry on his property. At the time he hit Kammerer, she was in the process of leaving the property, and the evidence presented by the State at trial sufficiently disproved Hankins's claim of defense of property. Hankins's arguments to the contrary are merely requests to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Larkin, 173 N.E.3d at 667. We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to rebut the claim of self-defense.

[8] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c).

2.   At the time of the trial, Kammerer had changed her last name to Rush.

Foley, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J. and Weissmann, J., concur.