MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing Aug 09 2017, 7:52 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Barbara J. Simmons Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Matthew B. MacKenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Tiffany Patton, August 9, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1702-CR-287
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Clayton Graham,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable Anne Flannelly,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G07-1609-CM-35615
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CR-287 | August 9, 2017 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Following a bench trial, Tiffany Patton was convicted of Class A misdemeanor
battery. Patton now appeals, arguing that the State presented insufficient
evidence to rebut her self-defense claim.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On September 10, 2016, Patton was involved in a car accident with Anita Cole.
After the accident, Patton exited her vehicle, ran up to Cole, called Cole a
“bitch,” and struck Cole on the left side of her head, causing pain. At no point
in the altercation did Cole touch or strike Patton. Patton called 911 after the
accident and asked the dispatcher to “hurry up and get somebody out here
before I hit [Cole].” Transcript Vol. II at 34. Police arrived shortly thereafter,
and when Cole told an officer that Patton had slapped her, Patton responded by
stating “I didn’t hit you that hard.” Id. at 16. Patton told police that she was
upset because Cole had hit her vehicle and did not have insurance and that she
had slapped Cole in the face. At no point did Patton claim that she had been
threatened, touched, or struck by Cole.
[4] As a result of these events, the State charged Patton with Class A misdemeanor
battery. A bench trial was held on January 18, 2017, at the conclusion of which
Patton was found guilty as charged. The trial court imposed a one-year
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CR-287 | August 9, 2017 Page 2 of 4
sentence, the entirety of which was suspended to probation. Patton now
appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[5] Patton argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to rebut her self-
defense claim. The standard for reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of
evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same standard used for any claim
of insufficient evidence. Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 2000). We
neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. If there
is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of
fact, the judgment will not be disturbed. Id. “A valid claim of self-defense is
legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.” Id.
[6] To prevail on her self-defense claim, Patton was required to show that she: (1)
was in a place where she had a right to be; (2) acted without fault; and (3) was
in reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm. Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d
274, 277 (Ind. 2003); see also Ind. Code. § 35-41-3-2. A person who provokes,
instigates, or participates willingly in the violence does not act without fault for
the purposes of self-defense. Shoultz v. State, 995 N.E.2d 647, 660 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2013).
[7] When a self-defense claim is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State
bears 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 its burden by
offering evidence directly rebutting the defense, by affirmatively showing that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CR-287 | August 9, 2017 Page 3 of 4
the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by relying upon the sufficiency of
the evidence from its case-in-chief. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind.
1999). If a defendant is convicted despite a claim of self-defense, we will
reverse only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated
beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800-01.
[8] Patton’s arguments are nothing more than requests to reweigh the evidence and
judge the credibility of witnesses, which we will not do on appeal. The
testimony of Cole and the responding officers amply supports a conclusion that
Patton attacked Cole in anger because she believed Cole was at fault for the
accident. The fact-finder was in no way obligated to accept Patton’s self-serving
testimony to the contrary. The evidence presented was more than sufficient to
rebut Patton’s self-defense claim.
[9] Judgment affirmed.
[10] Baker, J. and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1702-CR-287 | August 9, 2017 Page 4 of 4