MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 08/28/2017, 10:03 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
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
Deborah Markisohn Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
James B. Martin
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lauren Warman, August 28, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1612-CR-2762
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Tom Hirschauer,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Pro Tempore
Trial Court Cause No.
49G12-1607-CM-26741
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CR-2762 | August 28, 2017 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary and Issue
[1] Following a bench trial, Lauren Warman was convicted of battery causing
bodily injury as a Class A misdemeanor. Warman appeals, raising the sole
issue of whether the evidence is sufficient to support her conviction.
Concluding the evidence is sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In early July 2016, Warman lived with her mother, Melissa Davenport, and
sister, S.W., in Warman’s home in Indianapolis. At 6:00 a.m. on July 12,
Warman entered S.W.’s room to use S.W.’s cell phone. Warman was upset
and explained to S.W. “she wanted to beat [Melissa] up or kill her . . . .”
Transcript, Volume 2 at 39. Nearly thirty minutes later, Warman approached
Melissa as Melissa went outside to her car and began screaming at her. Melissa
described Warman as “crazed.” Id. at 11. Warman returned to the home and
locked the door. Melissa needed to get into the home so she could gather her
materials for work and threatened to call police. Warman then exited the home
and began shoving and punching Melissa. Melissa responded by grabbing
Warman’s hair and striking her. Hearing the commotion, S.W. went
downstairs and observed the struggle. S.W. attempted to stop the fight and
Melissa stopped striking Warman. Warman did not stop, however, and
grabbed Melissa’s hair and threw her to the floor. S.W. again tried to end the
fight by pulling Warman off Melissa. When Warman resisted, S.W. grabbed a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CR-2762 | August 28, 2017 Page 2 of 6
knife and began cutting Melissa’s hair to free her. Once S.W. prevailed,
Warman grabbed more hair. At some point, Melissa was able to call 911.
[3] At approximately 7:00 a.m., Officer Katie DeLeon with the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department arrived at the home and heard the sounds of
females screaming inside the home. Warman, bleeding from the face, came to
the door and allowed Officer DeLeon inside. Officer DeLeon observed Melissa
was bleeding from the face and holding clumps of her hair in her hand. Officer
DeLeon also observed clumps of hair scattered on the home’s floor. Warman
was arrested.
[4] On July 12, 2016, the State charged Warman with battery causing bodily injury
as a Class A misdemeanor. At a bench trial, the State presented the testimony
of Melissa, S.W., and Officer DeLeon. Warman testified on her own behalf
and claimed self-defense. According to Warman, she approached Melissa
outside and Melissa attempted to strike her. Warman then retreated to the
home and shut the door. Warman then opened the door, Melissa “rushed” at
Warman, and the two began fighting. Id. at 83. S.W. then approached the
pair. Warman feared S.W. would get hit, so Warman grabbed Melissa’s hair
and held her down to the ground.
[5] Warman was found guilty as charged and the trial court entered judgment of
conviction. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CR-2762 | August 28, 2017 Page 3 of 6
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[6] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to support a criminal
conviction, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility.
Smart v. State, 40 N.E.3d 963, 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Rather, we consider
only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences
arising from such evidence. Id. We will affirm a conviction unless “no
reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (citation
omitted).
II. Self-Defense
[7] Warman contends the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction because
the State failed to disprove her claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
We disagree.
[8] A valid claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.
Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002). To prevail on a claim of self-
defense, the defendant must show she: 1) was in a place she had a right to be, 2)
did not provoke, instigate, or willingly participate in the violence, and 3) had a
reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Id. Where, as here, the conduct
does not involve deadly force, the defendant claimant must only show that she
was protecting herself from what she reasonably believed to be the imminent
use of unlawful force. Dixson v. State, 22 N.E.3d 836, 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014),
trans. denied. “When a claim of self-defense is raised and finds support in the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CR-2762 | August 28, 2017 Page 4 of 6
evidence, the State has the burden of negating at least one of the necessary
elements.” Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800. Before she may claim self-defense, a
mutual combatant or initial aggressor must withdraw from the encounter and
communicate the intent to do so to the other person and the other person
nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action. Id. at 801; see
also Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(g)(3).
[9] The parties dispute whether Warman completely withdrew from the encounter.
Warman argues she did not provoke the fight. She claims Melissa initiated the
fight when she swung at her outside and Warman thereafter immediately
retreated inside and shut the door, and only after Melissa allegedly charged at
her did she willfully participate in the quarrel. Warman’s arguments are a
request for this court to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility,
which we will not do. Smart, 40 N.E.3d at 966.
[10] The evidence most favorable to the judgment establishes Warman stated to
S.W. she wanted to hurt Melissa just before the fight ensued. Melissa testified
Warman then approached her outside and began screaming in a “crazed”
manner. Tr., Vol. 2 at 11. Warman then returned to the home and locked
Melissa outside. After Melissa threatened to call the police, Warman opened
the door and attacked Melissa. The pair then exchanged blows and Warman
grabbed Melissa’s hair and threw her to the ground, and Warman held Melissa
to the ground despite S.W.’s attempts to free Melissa. A reasonable fact-finder
could find that Warman never completely withdrew from the encounter. We
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CR-2762 | August 28, 2017 Page 5 of 6
conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to negate Warman’s claim of
self-defense.
Conclusion
[11] The State presented sufficient evidence to convict Warman of battery causing
bodily injury as a Class A misdemeanor. Accordingly, we affirm.
[12] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CR-2762 | August 28, 2017 Page 6 of 6