MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Aug 25 2016, 7:35 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
CLERK
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
precedent or cited before any court except for the and Tax Court
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Donald J. Berger Gregory F. Zoeller
Law Office of Donald J. Berger Attorney General of Indiana
South Bend, Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Anita Rodriguez, August 25, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A03-1511-CR-1890
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior
Court.
The Honorable Jenny Pitts Manier,
State of Indiana, Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 71D05-1407-CM-2809
Shepard, Senior Judge
[1] Appellant Anita Rodriguez got into an argument with her neighbor, upon
whom she inflicted injuries. She contends she acted in self-defense.
Concluding there was sufficient evidence to negate her claim of self-defense, we
affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1511-CR-1890 | August 25, 2016 Page 1 of 4
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Rodriguez and Jose Galaviz were next-door neighbors with an acrimonious
relationship. On July 6, 2014, they were involved in a front-yard confrontation
that resulted in Rodriguez being charged with battery resulting in bodily injury,
as a Class A misdemeanor. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1 (2014). The jury found
Rodriguez guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced her to twelve months,
suspended to probation. This appeal followed.
Issue
[3] Rodriguez’s sole issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to rebut her claim
of self-defense.
Discussion and Decision
[4] A claim of self-defense can serve as a legal justification for an otherwise
criminal act. Burnside v. State, 858 N.E.2d 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Indiana
Code section 35-41-3-2 (2013) provides that a person may use reasonable force
against another to protect himself or herself from what he or she reasonably
believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. Once self-defense has been
raised, the State must either rebut the evidence directly – by affirmatively
showing the defendant did not act in self-defense – or by relying on the evidence
in its case-in-chief. Cole v. State, 28 N.E.3d 1126 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
[5] In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a claim of
self-defense, we use the same standard as for any claim of insufficiency. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1511-CR-1890 | August 25, 2016 Page 2 of 4
Specifically, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the
witnesses. Id. If there is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the
conclusion of the trier of fact, the verdict will not be disturbed. Id.
[6] At Rodriguez’s August 2015 jury trial, the State presented the testimony of
Galaviz. He stated that on the afternoon of July 6, 2014, he heard his children
and their friends, who were outside, arguing with Rodriguez because she was
videoing the children’s activities. To diffuse the situation, Galaviz hung a bed
sheet across the side of the porch to block Rodriguez from seeing the children.
[7] Once Galaviz went back inside, Rodriguez came off her porch and onto the
sidewalk in front of Galaviz’s property and continued to video and use
profanity with the children. Galaviz returned to his porch to see Rodriguez
coming into his yard. He stepped off the porch into his yard, and Rodriguez
approached and swung at him. She failed to make contact and swung again.
This time she scratched Galaviz’s neck and arms and pulled the chain from
around his neck, breaking it. This caused a stinging pain to Galaviz. After
swinging at Galaviz the second time, Rodriguez fell down. Rodriguez threw
down her cell phone and glasses and told Galaviz she would tell the police that
he had hit her, knocked her to the ground, and broken her phone and glasses.
Galaviz testified he did not hit, kick, or push down Rodriguez. The police
arrived and took photos of Galaviz’s injuries, which were admitted at trial.
[8] Neighbors and Galaviz’s fiancée testified that Rodriguez attacked Galaviz, that
they did not see Galaviz strike Rodriguez at any point, and that Rodriguez fell
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1511-CR-1890 | August 25, 2016 Page 3 of 4
to the ground, saying that Galaviz pushed her down. In addition, the two
police officers responding to the scene testified that Rodriguez told them she
was assaulted; however, they saw no injuries, blood, red marks, bruising, or
swelling on Rodriguez. They did observe injuries to Galaviz. One of the
officers further testified that he found a chain type of necklace with dog tags or
a medallion clenched in Rodriguez’s fist when he handcuffed her.
[9] Rodriguez’s sole witness was her sister Ramona, with whom Rodriguez lives.
Ramona testified that Galaviz jumped off his porch, ran toward Rodriguez,
grabbed her, and threw her down. She testified that Rodriguez was knocked
unconscious, had multiple bruises and scratches, two broken fingers, and a head
injury. Photos that Ramona said she took of Rodriguez the day after the
incident were admitted into evidence.
[10] There is sufficient probative evidence from which the jury could conclude that
Rodriguez did not act in self-defense and that the State rebutted Rodriguez’s
claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
[11] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1511-CR-1890 | August 25, 2016 Page 4 of 4