MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 31 2017, 9:53 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kurt A. Young Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Nashville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Matthew B. Mackenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Codi Butler, May 31, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1610-CR-2415
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
The Honorable Steven J. Rubick,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G01-1509-F3-34511
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2415 | May 31, 2017 Page 1 of 10
Statement of the Case
[1] Codi Butler appeals his convictions, following a bench trial, for criminal
confinement, as a Level 3 felony, and residential entry, a Level 6 felony. He
raises one issue on appeal, namely, whether the State presented sufficient
evidence to support his convictions. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On September 24, 2015, Elliott Bevers was in his apartment on South East
Street in Indianapolis playing video games when he heard the two women who
lived next door screaming and cursing as they ran up the stairs and closed their
apartment door. Bevers opened his door and looked out to see Butler, who he
did not know and had never seen before, coming up the stairs with a gun.
Bevers closed his door and attempted to hide in a small closet. Butler kicked in
Bevers’ door and entered Bevers’ apartment. Bevers saw “a lot of blood on
[Butler’s] body,” and Butler seemed to be scared. Tr. Vol. II at 29. Bevers said,
“hello” to Butler, id. at 28, and Butler responded, “I’m not going to shoot you.
Shut the f--- up. I’m not going to shoot you,” id. at 21. Butler waved his gun in
Bevers’ direction and Bevers could see the entire gun, including the barrel.
Butler told Bevers, “I’m bleeding.” Id. at 29. Bevers asked Butler, “Were you
shot?” Id. Bevers replied, “I was shot.” Id.
[3] Bevers was afraid for his safety and did not feel free to leave his apartment.
When Bevers first offered to call 9-1-1 for Butler, Butler said, “no.” Id. at 22.
When Bevers offered a little while later to call an ambulance for Butler, Butler
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2415 | May 31, 2017 Page 2 of 10
responded, “yes.” Id. After Bevers called 9-1-1, Butler stated, “They’re coming
to kill me.” Id. at 29.
[4] Bevers saw red lights outside the apartment through his bathroom window.
Butler, still holding a gun, approached Bevers. Butler did not point his gun at
Bevers or push Bevers or speak to Bevers at this time, but he made “enough”
physical contact with Bevers that Bevers believed he had to go into the
bathroom with Butler. Id. at 24. The two men entered the bathroom and Butler
looked out the window. When Butler saw the police, he said to Bevers, “Why
did you tell them I had a gun?” Id. Bevers responded that he did not tell the
police that Butler had a gun. Butler then rubbed his gun on his shirt and walked
into the main room of the apartment. Butler moved a trundle bed partly in
front of the apartment door, and he then laid down on the floor in between the
bed and the wall, to the side of the front door.
[5] Officers Jose Navarro and Jennifer Asher of the Indianapolis Metropolitan
Police Department (“IMPD”) responded to a dispatch report that a black male
wearing a white shirt and “khakis” had “purportedly” fired six gun shots in the
area of Lincoln and New Jersey streets and was running toward the Emhardt
building, which was Bevers’ apartment building. Id. at 49-50. When Officers
Navarro and Asher arrived outside Bevers’ apartment building, Officer Navarro
noticed damage to the exterior door of the building. The officers then checked
inside the apartment building and Officer Navarro noticed damage to Bevers’
apartment door, which was slightly open. The officers announced themselves
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2415 | May 31, 2017 Page 3 of 10
and pushed their way into the apartment, past the trundle bed blocking the
door.
[6] Upon entering Bevers’ apartment, Officer Navarro saw Butler lying on the floor
to the left of the door. Officers Navarro and Asher also saw Bevers toward the
back of the apartment, and he appeared to be shaking, nervous, and scared.
While Officers Navarro and Asher checked the rest of the apartment, IMPD
Officer Gregory Popcheff arrived and saw Butler lying on the floor. Officers
Navarro and Asher went to Butler to see if he was injured. When they lifted
Butler’s shirt, a small black handgun fell out of the shirt. EMS personnel
arrived at the scene. The officers and EMS personnel who inspected Butler did
not find any gunshot wounds on him. The officers arrested Butler and placed
him in an ambulance. While paramedics were evaluating Butler for injuries, he
began to struggle. Butler disobeyed Officer Popcheff’s commands and resisted
the officer’s attempts to place handcuffs on him.
[7] The State charged Butler with Count I, criminal confinement as a Level 3
felony; Count II, carrying a handgun without a license, as a Level 5 felony;
Count III, residential entry, a Level 6 felony; Count IV, resisting law
enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor; and Count V, pointing a firearm, as a
Level 6 felony. Butler waived a jury trial and his bench trial occurred on
September 9, 2016. At his trial, Butler admitted that he did not have a license
to carry the handgun, that he had kicked in Bevers’ door, and that he had
resisted law enforcement officers while they tried to restrain him in the
ambulance. But Butler maintained that he broke into Bevers’ apartment due to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2415 | May 31, 2017 Page 4 of 10
an emergency—that is, he was trying to escape several men who had pulled a
gun on him earlier and who he thought were chasing him. Butler testified that
he did not pull out his own gun during the encounter with the other men.
Butler testified that he told the medics and officers in the ambulance that “they
tried to kill [him].” Tr. Vol. II at 68. However, Officers Navarro and Popcheff
testified that they did not hear Butler make that statement and they did not hear
him tell them that he was in danger.
[8] Officer Popcheff testified that Butler matched the description of the suspect in
the September 24, 2015, dispatch report. The State introduced its Exhibit 19, to
which Butler stipulated. That exhibit, which was a CD recording of telephone
conversations Butler had while he was in jail for the charges in this case, was
admitted. In particular, the following portions of Exhibit 19 were played for the
court:
Unidentified Male: “Do I know who did it?”
Butler: “What’s that?”
Male: “The shooting.”
Butler: “Ah, sh--[,] bro, I jumped the gun first[,] bro.”
Appellee’s Br. at 13. And:
Unidentified Female: “And you didn’t[,] like, stab somebody
with a knife, or pull a gun or nothing?”
Butler: “Yeah I had pulled a gun [laughs] it was . . .”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2415 | May 31, 2017 Page 5 of 10
Female: “There you go, now I got ya.”
Id.1
[9] The trial court found Butler guilty of Count I, criminal confinement, as a Level
3 felony; Count II, carrying a handgun without a license, as a Level 5 felony;
Count III, residential entry, a Level 6 felony; and Count IV, resisting law
enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor. The court entered judgment and
sentenced Butler to concurrent terms of nine years, three years, one year, and
one year on the respective counts. The court found Butler not guilty of Count
V, pointing a firearm. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[10] Butler challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions of
criminal confinement and residential entry.2 Our standard of review of the
sufficiency of the evidence is well-settled:
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to
support a criminal conviction, we neither reweigh evidence nor
judge witness credibility. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005
(Ind. 2009). “We consider only the evidence supporting the
judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
such evidence.” Id. We will affirm if there is substantial
1
The Court Reporter was unable to locate the CD of the jail telephone calls for inclusion in the record on
appeal. Ex. Vol. I at 22-23. However, Butler does not dispute the accuracy of the above quotes of two of the
jail telephone calls as contained in the State’s brief.
2
Butler does not appeal his convictions for carrying a handgun without a license and resisting law
enforcement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2415 | May 31, 2017 Page 6 of 10
evidence of probative value such that a reasonable trier of fact
could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id.
Clemons v. State, 996 N.E.2d 1282, 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
[11] To support Butler’s conviction of criminal confinement, as a Level 3 felony, the
State had to prove: (1) Butler; (2) knowingly or intentionally; (3) confined
Bevers without his consent; (4) while armed with a handgun. Ind. Code § 35-
42-3-3 (2015). To support his conviction of residential entry, the State was
required to prove: (1) Butler; (2) knowingly or intentionally; (3) broke and
entered Bevers’ dwelling. I.C. § 35-43-2-1.5. Butler does not deny that he
knowingly confined Bevers without his consent while armed with a handgun.
Nor does he deny that he knowingly broke and entered Bevers’ dwelling.
Rather, Butler contends that he “presented all the elements of the defense of
necessity”—thus showing his actions were justified—and that the State failed to
rebut any of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant’s Br. at 12.
[12] When a defendant raises the affirmative defense of necessity, he must show:
(1) the act charged as criminal must have been done to prevent a
significant evil, (2) there must have been no adequate alternative
to the commission of the act, (3) the harm caused by the act must
not be disproportionate to the harm avoided, (4) the accused
must entertain a good faith belief that his act was necessary to
prevent greater harm, (5) such belief must be objectively
reasonable under all the circumstances, and (6) the accused must
not have substantially contributed to the creation of the
emergency.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2415 | May 31, 2017 Page 7 of 10
Dozier v. State, 709 N.E.2d 27, 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Toops v. State, 643
N.E.2d 387, 390 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994)).3 To negate a claim of necessity, the
State must disprove at least one element of the defense beyond a reasonable
doubt. Id. “Where a defendant is convicted despite his claim of necessity, this
court will reverse the conviction only if no reasonable person could say that the
defense was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clemons, 996
N.E.2d at 1285.
[13] Assuming without deciding that Butler proved all six necessity elements by a
preponderance of the evidence, the trial court did not err in holding that the
State provided sufficient evidence to disprove at least one of those elements
beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the parties discuss several of the
necessity elements, we only address whether Butler substantially contributed to
the nature of the emergency. We hold that the State provided sufficient
evidence that he did.
[14] Although Butler claims that he did not initiate the shooting with other men in
the area of Lincoln and New Jersey streets, the State provided sufficient
evidence from which the trial court could reasonably infer that he did. The
3
Thus, Butler is incorrect when he maintains, without citation to authority, that he did not have the burden
of proving the affirmative defense of necessity by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant’s Br. at 4.
Necessity is an affirmative defense in which the defendant “admits all the elements of the crime, but proves
circumstances which excuse the defendant from culpability.” Clemens, 996 N.E.2d at 1285 (quoting Melendez
v. State, 511 N.E.2d 454, 457 (Ind. 1987)). And “[a] defendant bears an initial burden of proof by a
preponderance of the evidence on any affirmative defense.” Wilson v. State, 997 N.E.2d 38, 44 (Ind. Ct. App.
2013) (quoting Adkins v. State, 887 N.E.2d 934, 938 (Ind. 2008)), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2415 | May 31, 2017 Page 8 of 10
IMPD officers testified that the September 24, 2015, dispatch report was that a
black male wearing a white shirt and khakis had purportedly fired six gun shots
in the area of Lincoln and New Jersey streets and was running toward the
Emhardt building, which was Bevers’ apartment building. Officer Popcheff
testified that Butler, who was found at Bevers’ apartment soon thereafter,
matched the dispatch report description of the suspect and possessed a gun.
[15] Moreover, the State presented evidence, to which Butler stipulated, of
telephone conversations Butler had while in jail. In those calls, Butler stated, in
reference to the shootings he said took place on September 24, 2015, that he
had “jumped the gun first,” and that he “had pulled a gun.” Appellee’s Br. at
13. Butler does not deny that he made those statements or that they referred to
the events of September 24. Rather, he insists that the State and the court
misinterpreted them. However, this is merely a request that we reweigh the
evidence, which we cannot do. Clemons, 996 N.E.2d at 1285. It was reasonable
for the trial court to conclude that Butler substantially contributed to the
creation of the alleged emergency from the evidence of Butler’s identity, his
location at the scene, and his possession of a gun, and from the evidence that he
was the first to pull a gun during the shooting.
[16] A reasonable person could conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence
to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt Butler’s claim that he did not
substantially contribute to the creation of the emergency that allegedly
necessitated his actions. Id. As the State need only negate one of the six
necessity defense elements, Dozier, 709 N.E.2d at 29, we hold that there was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2415 | May 31, 2017 Page 9 of 10
sufficient evidence to support Butler’s convictions of criminal confinement and
residential entry.
[17] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2415 | May 31, 2017 Page 10 of 10