FILED
Jul 08 2016, 8:37 am
MEMORANDUM DECISION
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this and Tax Court
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Barbara J. Simmons Gregory F. Zoeller
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Lyubov Gore
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Sauntio Carter, July 8, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1511-CR-1822
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court.
The Honorable Christina R.
State of Indiana, Klineman, Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 49G17-1507-F6-26649
Barteau, Senior Judge
Statement of the Case
[1] Sauntio Carter appeals his conviction of battery resulting in bodily injury, a
Class A misdemeanor. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1 (2014). We affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1511-CR-1822 | July 8, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Issue
[2] Carter raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the State of Indiana
presented sufficient evidence to rebut Carter’s claim of self-defense.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Kiana Moore and Carter were in a romantic relationship from April 2015 until
July 2015. On June 27, 2015, she went to Carter’s house after they argued on
the phone. They continued to argue outside the house, and Moore went inside
to get her laundry. She picked up her laundry basket and prepared to leave, but
Carter continued to argue with her. Next, Carter knocked the basket out of
Moore’s hands and struck her in the face. Carter’s punch “busted [her] lip,”
causing bleeding. Tr. p. 10. Moore defended herself, attempting to prevent
Carter from hitting her. After she broke away from Carter, she left the house
and contacted the police.
[4] The State charged Carter with strangulation, a Level 6 felony, and battery
resulting in bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor. Carter waived his right to a
jury trial. At the bench trial, Moore testified as set forth above. Carter
presented a claim of self-defense, claiming Moore attacked him first. After the
presentation of evidence, the court concluded: “I don’t doubt there was a lot of
screaming and yelling but I believe her story.” Id. at 27. The court determined
Carter was not guilty of strangulation but was guilty of battery and sentenced
him accordingly. This appeal followed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1511-CR-1822 | July 8, 2016 Page 2 of 5
Discussion and Decision
[5] Carter asserts the State failed to present sufficient evidence to disprove his claim
of self-defense. 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. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002). 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. Cole v. State, 28 N.E.3d 1126, 1137 (Ind. Ct. App.
2015).
[6] 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. Bryant v. State, 984 N.E.2d 240, 250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans.
denied. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the
witnesses. Id. We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences drawn from the evidence that support the verdict. Id. If the
defendant is convicted despite a claim of self-defense, this Court will reverse
only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the
State beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800-01.
[7] “A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to
protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to
be the imminent use of unlawful force.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c) (2013). “No
person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1511-CR-1822 | July 8, 2016 Page 3 of 5
protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.” Id. 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.”
Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(g).
[8] To prevail on a claim of self-defense under Indiana Code section 35-41-3-2, a
defendant must have: (1) acted without fault; (2) been in a place where he or
she had a right to be; and (3) been in reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily
harm. Weedman v. State, 21 N.E.3d 873, 891-92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.
denied.
[9] Based on our review of the transcript, the State submitted sufficient evidence to
rebut Carter’s claim of self-defense. Viewing the facts in the light most
favorable to the judgment, Carter attacked Moore first, and she merely blocked
his punches. Furthermore, he did not withdraw from the confrontation. To the
contrary, he continued to attack Moore until she was able to break away from
him and flee. Under these circumstances, Carter was not entitled to use force.
See Cole, 28 N.E.3d at 1137 (evidence showed defendant was the aggressor and
thus was not entitled to use force). Carter’s challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence fails.
Conclusion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1511-CR-1822 | July 8, 2016 Page 4 of 5
[10] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[11] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1511-CR-1822 | July 8, 2016 Page 5 of 5