MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Oct 30 2017, 9:22 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Thomas P. Keller Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Justin F. Roebel
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Curtis Smith, October 30, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A05-1705-CR-1062
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jane Miller, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
71D01-1606-F5-112
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1062 | October 30, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary and Issue
[1] Following a jury trial, Curtis Smith was convicted of criminal recklessness, a
Level 6 felony. Smith appeals, raising the sole issue of whether the evidence is
sufficient to support his conviction. Concluding the evidence is sufficient, we
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On the afternoon of June 10, 2016, Smith drove to pick up his two daughters
from their mother, Keishna Washington. When he arrived at her apartment, he
informed Washington he was taking the children to his former girlfriend’s home
for the weekend. An argument ensued between Washington and Smith about
taking the children to Smith’s ex-girlfriend’s home, and Washington, her new
boyfriend Kamaran Burnley, and a few other friends and relatives walked
outside to confront Smith. Eventually, Smith and Burnley began arguing and
threatening to harm each other. See Transcript, Volume II at 35, 88.
[3] Smith and Burnley eventually separated and Smith returned to his vehicle. As
Smith prepared to leave, Washington attempted to remove the children from
Smith’s vehicle and Smith began driving in a “figure 8” motion around the
parking lot. Tr., Vol. II at 59. Burnley then turned and began walking away
from Smith’s car back to the apartment. As he walked away, Smith drove his
car at Burnley, sped up, and struck Burnley before crashing into a dumpster at
the opposite end of the parking lot. Smith then fled in his car.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1062 | October 30, 2017 Page 2 of 5
[4] The State charged Smith with battery by means of a deadly weapon, a Level 5
felony. At trial, three separate witnesses testified they saw Smith speed up and
hit Burnley with his car as Burnley was walking away. Id. at 102, 121, 143.
The jury found Smith guilty of criminal recklessness, a Level 6 felony and lesser
included offense of battery by means of a deadly weapon. Smith now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[5] Smith argues he acted in self-defense when he struck Burnley with his car.
“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 [of review] for any sufficiency
of the evidence claim.” Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 801 (Ind. 2002). “We
neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. If there is
sufficient evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of
fact, then the verdict will not be disturbed.” Id. (internal citation omitted). In
the event the defendant is convicted despite asserting a claim of self-defense, we
will reverse only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated
by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 800-01.
II. Self-Defense
[6] Smith contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because
the State failed to disprove his claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
We disagree.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1062 | October 30, 2017 Page 3 of 5
[7] A valid claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.
Id. at 800. To prevail on a claim of self-defense, the defendant must show he: 1)
was in a place he 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. Any force used must be proportionate to the situation; a claim of
self-defense will fail if the person uses more force than is reasonably necessary
under the circumstances. Weedman v. State, 21 N.E.3d 873, 892 (Ind. Ct. App.
2014), trans. denied. “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, 770 N.E.2d at 800. The State may meet its 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.” Hood v. State, 877 N.E.2d 492, 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied.
[8] Here, the State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate Smith did not have
a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Smith asserts the number of
people in the parking lot and the escalating argument with Burnley justify his
use of force. However, this argument essentially asks that we assess witness
credibility and reweigh the evidence in his favor, which is the role of the fact-
finder, not the role of this court. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 801. Although Smith
and Burnley threatened each other, the testimony presented at trial
demonstrates Burnley was walking away from the argument and back to the
apartment. Moreover, as multiple witnesses testified, Smith was not prohibited
or blocked from leaving the parking lot in his car. Instead, Smith chose to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1062 | October 30, 2017 Page 4 of 5
speed up to a rate “you wouldn’t use in a parking lot” and drove his car into
Burnley as he walked away. Tr., Vol. II at 143. The State presented sufficient
evidence to rebut Smith’s claim he acted in self-defense.
Conclusion
[9] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Smith’s conviction.
Accordingly, we affirm.
[10] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1062 | October 30, 2017 Page 5 of 5