Alonzo Dempsey, Jr., Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Alonzo Dempsey, Jr. appeals his conviction of battery, asserting the evidence was insufficient to rebut his claim of self-defense. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In October 2025, Dempsey was at the casino in Shelbyville. Brent Rolli and his wife, who were both intoxicated, were also at the casino that night. After running out of cash, Dempsey approached Rolli and asked him if he had Apple Pay. Rolli replied that he did not, and Dempsey moved on. Dempsey subsequently approached a woman, whom he later learned was Rolli's wife, and inquired whether she had Apple Pay. When she responded affirmatively, Dempsey explained his proposed transaction, and she agreed to give him $80 in cash in exchange for his transfer of $80 to her via Apple Pay. After Dempsey transferred the money to Rolli's wife but before she gave him the cash, Rolli approached them. He was angry, and he called for security.

[3] Paige Mann, a slot attendant at the casino, approached the men. Rolli was “hootin’ and hollerin’ ” and “screamin’ ” at Dempsey, and Dempsey informed her that he had sent $80 through Apple Pay but had not received the cash in return. Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 43, 44. A security officer then arrived and stood between Dempsey and Rolli; however, the security officer stepped away when he saw Indiana Gaming Commission (“IGC”) officers approaching. Rolli stepped up so that he “[wa]s in Mr. Dempsey's face.” Id. at 46. He took a $100 bill from his wallet, shoved it at Dempsey, and said, “[I]f I ever see you again, I will kill you.” Id. at 47. As the IGC officers reached the men, Dempsey swung and hit Rolli, knocking him backward into one of the officers. Rolli and the officer were knocked to the ground, and Rolli lost consciousness for a few seconds.

[4] Based on this event, the State charged Dempsey with battery as a Class A misdemeanor. Following a bench trial at which Dempsey raised a claim of self-defense, he was convicted and sentenced to sixty days with all but four days suspended. Dempsey now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Dempsey contends the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense the same as we do for any claim of insufficient evidence. Ervin v. State, 114 N.E.3d 888, 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. That is, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment. Stewart v. State, 167 N.E.3d 367, 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 133 (Ind. 2016)), trans. denied. 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. Stewart, 167 N.E.3d at 376.

[6] A claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Id.; Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(a). Where, as here, a case does not involve deadly force, Indiana law provides that a person is justified in using reasonable force against another to protect himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. I.C. § 35-41-3-2(c). Accordingly, to prevail on such a claim of self-defense, a defendant must show (1) he was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) he acted without fault; and (3) he had a reasonable fear of the imminent use of unlawful force. Dixson v. State, 22 N.E.3d 836, 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (distinguishing between showing required in cases when there is use of deadly force and those not involving deadly force), trans. denied. A defendant's claim that he acted without fault requires that he did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence. Milam v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1208, 1210 (Ind. 1999).

[7] The State bears the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements and may meet that burden by rebutting the defense directly with an affirmative showing the defendant did not act in self-defense or by relying on the sufficiency of its evidence in chief. Stewart, 167 N.E.3d at 376. Whether the State has satisfied its burden is a question of fact for the factfinder. Id. The factfinder's conclusion concerning whether a defendant acted in self-defense is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. Hall v. State, 166 N.E.3d 406, 413 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Griffin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 375, 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied).

[8] There was sufficient evidence to rebut Dempsey's claim of self-defense. While Dempsey was in a place he had a right to be, he did not act without fault. Dempsey testified that when Rolli was shoving the $100 bill at him, he did not know what Rolli had in his hand, and he pushed Rolli's hand away. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 78. Then Rolli stepped up in his face and said, “If I see you again, I'm gonna kill you.” Id. at 78-79. Dempsey stated that is when “the spit come on my face,” and he shoved Rolli. Id. at 79. He further explained: “Like I said, ․ when he poked at me and everything, I let all that go. I let it go. But it was the simple fact when I felt the spit in my face, that's what, that's what prompted me to swing.” Id. at 81.

[9] Rolli testified that he did not intentionally spit on Dempsey. Id. at 38. Dempsey acknowledged this, stating that if “you're drunk, and you're belligerent, and you're yelling at someone and you were talking, spit is coming out [of] your mouth.” Id. at 80.

[10] Although Rolli initiated the interaction by screaming at Dempsey and getting in his face, the State presented more than enough evidence to show that Dempsey responded with more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances. “ ‘The trier of fact is not precluded from finding that a person used unreasonable force simply because the victim was the initial aggressor.’ ” Hall, 166 N.E.3d at 413 (quoting McCullough v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1135, 1138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied). The level of force that an individual may use to protect himself must be proportionate to the situation, and when an individual uses more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances, the right to self-defense is extinguished. Hall, 166 N.E.3d at 414 (quoting Pinkston v. State, 821 N.E.2d 830, 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied).

[11] Here, Dempsey escalated a verbal dispute into a physical confrontation by pushing Rolli. Accordingly, the factfinder could have reasonably concluded that Dempsey's reaction was a disproportionate response to Rolli's verbal assault, thus extinguishing his right to self-defense. Indeed, in finding Dempsey guilty, the trial court explained: “At the end of the day, I think your force was more than what was necessary to stop that.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 97.

[12] Further, “a self-defense justification cannot be based on a mere verbal threat because ‘oftentimes combatants make threats of violence which are never carried out.’ ” Turner v. State, 253 N.E.3d 526, 541 (Ind. 2025) (quoting Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 278 (Ind. 2003)). Moreover, “the feared harm must be imminent.” Turner, 253 N.E.3d at 541. Here, Rolli's threat of violence, whether genuine or not, was for the future. Consequently, Dempsey's actions cannot be justified based on Rolli's verbal threat.

Conclusion

[13] It was within the factfinder's purview to determine that Dempsey used more force than necessary to defend himself against Rolli's verbal assault, and we therefore conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence at trial to rebut Dempsey's claim of self-defense.

[14] Affirmed.

Robb, Senior Judge.

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