MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 04 2017, 10:35 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
Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tyler Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Logan Sabik, October 4, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1705-CR-907
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Peggy Ryan Hart,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Pro Tempore
Trial Court Cause No.
49G10-1612-CM-47029
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1705-CR-907 | October 4, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Logan Sabik appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for class A
misdemeanor battery. He contends that the State presented insufficient
evidence to rebut his self-defense claim. Finding the evidence sufficient, we
affirm his conviction.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In December 2016, Sabik resided in a home with his aunt, Stephanie Sabik. On
December 7, Stephanie’s girlfriend, Ashley Howard, returned to the home from
work and encountered a “very agitated” Sabik. Tr. at 55. Apparently,
Stephanie and Sabik had been arguing throughout the day and were still
arguing when Howard arrived. Howard also began arguing with Sabik, and as
the situation escalated, Stephanie “put her hands on” Sabik to direct him back
toward his bedroom to keep him away from Howard. Id. at 57. Nevertheless,
Sabik charged at Howard “[t]he way a bull would charge … he just kind of
hunkered down ….” Id. at 58. Howard’s “martial arts background … instantly
kicked in as a self-defense” and she managed to put Sabik in a headlock and
“put him on the floor” to try to calm him down. Id. Sabik freed himself and
then “body slammed” Howard by lifting her over his head and slamming her to
the ground. Id. at 56, 59. When she got back up, he did it again. Stephanie
pulled Sabik off Howard and called police. Howard suffered minor injuries to
her mouth and knee.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1705-CR-907 | October 4, 2017 Page 2 of 5
[3] The State charged Sabik with one count of class A misdemeanor battery with
Howard as the victim and one count of class B misdemeanor battery with
Stephanie as the victim. During the bench trial, Sabik claimed that he was
acting in self-defense. The trial court found Sabik guilty of the class A
misdemeanor battery regarding Howard but not guilty of the class B
misdemeanor regarding Stephanie. The court sentenced Sabik to a one-year
fully suspended sentence. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Sabik’s sole contention on appeal is that the State presented insufficient
evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. Our 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. Wolf v. State, 76
N.E.3d 911, 915 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). We neither reweigh the evidence nor
judge the credibility of the witnesses. A.A. v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1277, 1280 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2015). We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences supporting the trial court’s decision and will affirm the conviction if
there is substantial evidence of probative value such that a reasonable trier of
fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Id. at 1280-81.
[5] “A valid claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal
act.” Wolf, 76 N.E.3d at 915 (quoting Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind.
2000)). “A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1705-CR-907 | October 4, 2017 Page 3 of 5
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). To prevail
on a self-defense claim, a defendant must show three things: (1) he was in a
place where he had a right to be; (2) he did not provoke, instigate, or participate
willingly in the violence; and (3) he was protecting himself from what he
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 (2015).1 Further, self-
defense is not appropriate for a defendant who is the initial aggressor except in
very limited circumstances not applicable here. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696,
700 (Ind. 1999).2
[6] “When a claim of self-defense is raised and finds support in the evidence, the
State bears the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements.” King
v. State, 61 N.E.3d 1275, 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied (2017). “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.” Id. If a defendant is convicted despite his
claim of self-defense, we will reverse only if no reasonable person could say that
1
This Court has repeatedly stated that the third thing a defendant claiming self-defense must show is that “he
had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.” See, e.g., McCullough v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1135, 1138
(Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. However, we have determined that while a reasonable fear of death or
serious bodily injury is undoubtedly required in a case involving deadly force, “when a case does not involve
deadly force, a defendant claiming self-defense must only show that he was protecting himself from what he
‘reasonably believe[d] to be the imminent use of unlawful force.’” Dixson, 22 N.E.3d at 839 (quoting Ind.
Code § 35-41-3-2(c)).
2
A self-defense claim is available to an initial aggressor only if he or she withdraws from the encounter and
communicates to the other person his or her intent to withdraw but the other person nevertheless continues
or threatens to continue unlawful action. Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(g)(3).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1705-CR-907 | October 4, 2017 Page 4 of 5
self-defense was negated beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d
799, 801 (Ind. 2002).
[7] Here, the evidence presented by the State in its case-in-chief was sufficient to
satisfy its burden of negating Sabik’s self-defense claim. While the evidence
indicates that Stephanie did initially put her hands on Sabik, Howard testified
that Sabik charged at her and was the initial aggressor and instigator with
regard to the physical altercation between them. Although Sabik, and to some
extent even Stephanie, provided an alternate version of events as to who was
the initial aggressor, the trial court, as the trier of fact, was entitled to determine
which version of events to credit. See Barton v. State, 490 N.E.2d 317, 318 (Ind.
1986). The trial court chose to believe Howard. Sabik’s arguments on appeal
are simply an invitation for this Court to reweigh the evidence and reassess
witness credibility in his favor, and we will not. There was sufficient testimony
from which the trial court could reasonably conclude that Sabik was the initial
aggressor and that he provoked, instigated, or participated willingly in the
violence that occurred, therefore negating his claim of self-defense.
Accordingly, we affirm his conviction.
[8] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1705-CR-907 | October 4, 2017 Page 5 of 5