Dustin Hinz v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 20 2016, 9:28 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Barbara J. Simmons Gregory F. Zoeller
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Paula J. Beller
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Dustin Hinz, April 20, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1508-CR-1067
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Christina R.
Appellee-Plaintiff Klineman, Judge
The Honorable Marshelle
Broadwell, Commissioner
Trial Court Cause No.
49G17-1505-CM-17039
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1508-CR-1067| April 20, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Heather Deal suffered injuries during a domestic dispute with Dustin Hinz.
The State charged Hinz with four class A misdemeanor batteries. Hinz was
convicted of all four counts at a bench trial. The trial court merged counts I, II,
and III and sentenced Hinz on counts I and IV. On appeal, Hinz argues that he
acted in self-defense and that there is insufficient evidence to support his
convictions. We disagree and affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The facts most favorable to the convictions demonstrate that in May 2015 Deal
and Hinz lived together with their two-year-old son. Their son had been placed
in Child Protective Services’ custody, and both Hinz and Deal were subject to
monthly drug screens. On May 15, 2015, Hinz and Deal went to a community
center to request assistance with getting the water in their house turned back on.
When they returned home, Deal told Hinz that she was going to her ex-
husband’s house to take a shower and wash some clothes. Deal asked if he
wanted to join her, and Hinz declined. Deal finished at her ex-husband’s
house and went to pick up a carry-out lunch for Hinz and herself. While Deal
was out she received a text from Joy, her caseworker from the Department of
Child Services. Joy let Deal know that she would be arriving at her house soon
for a drug screen and would wait for her in the driveway. When Deal got
home, Joy asked her if she thought Hinz would comply with his drug screen.
Deal went to check with Hinz, who was sleeping. Hinz became very hostile; he
threw a blanket across the room and started screaming and yelling that Deal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1508-CR-1067| April 20, 2016 Page 2 of 6
was a “cheating whore.” Tr. at 19. Joy tested Hinz and Deal for drugs and
then left the residence.
[3] Deal went into the living room to eat her lunch while Hinz continued to rant
that she did nothing but cheat on him and that he was tired of being there. Deal
repeatedly asked Hinz to gather his things and leave. Deal lit a cigarette, which
Hinz took from her, so she went into the bedroom and lit another cigarette.
Hinz then grabbed a knife, pulled Deal’s hair, and struck her in the face. He
told Deal that she was “really going to regret throwing [him] out.” Id. at 22.
Hinz followed Deal as she escaped to the living room. Using one hand, Hinz
grabbed Deal’s arms and held them over her head against the wall; using his
other hand, Hinz held a knife against her throat. Deal screamed as she
struggled, which caused redness, bruising, and scratches on her neck. Deal
finally escaped and ran through the kitchen to her car.
[4] Hinz followed her outside, picked up a hammer, and continued to threaten
Deal by swinging the hammer erratically until she climbed out the passenger
window of her car. When Deal was out of the car, Hinz struck her in the face
with the hammer, causing a blood blister on her lip and a dark bruise on her
chin. Deal went back into the house to retrieve her phone; she tried calling the
police but her phone had died. Believing that Hinz had left, Deal returned to
her car to charge her phone. Hinz returned, grabbed her cell phone out of her
hand, and slapped her in the chest. Deal went into the house and did not return
to her car until Hinz left.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1508-CR-1067| April 20, 2016 Page 3 of 6
[5] Officer Robert Chandler of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
responded to a call from Deal’s neighbors. En route, he saw Hinz walking
away from the residence carrying a black bag and a hunting knife. Officer
Chandler waited for backup before arresting Hinz, and then proceeded to the
residence to speak with Deal. Officer Chandler asked Deal questions
repeatedly because she was crying and could not focus on what she was trying
to say or piece everything together.
[6] The State subsequently charged Hinz with class A misdemeanors: domestic
battery (count I), battery resulting in bodily injury (count II), domestic battery
(count III), and battery resulting in bodily injury (count IV). The trial court
found Hinz guilty as charged, merged counts I, II, and III, and sentenced Hinz
on counts I and IV.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Hinz contends that his actions were in self-defense and thus there is insufficient
evidence to support his battery convictions.
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
underlying a criminal conviction, we neither reweigh the
evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses. The evidence—
even if conflicting—and all reasonable inferences drawn from it
are viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction. “[W]e
affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value
supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable
trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.” A conviction can be sustained on only the
uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even when that
witness is the victim.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1508-CR-1067| April 20, 2016 Page 4 of 6
Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012) (citations omitted).
[8] “A valid claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal
act.” Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). To prevail on a claim of
self-defense, a defendant must establish that he was in a place where he had a
right to be, did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence,
and had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Kimbrough v. State, 911
N.E.2d 621, 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). 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 for any sufficiency of the evidence claim. Id. The State has the
burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements. Id. The State can
rebut the defendant’s claim of self-defense by relying on the evidence of its case-
in-chief. Id.
[9] Hinz testified to telling Officer Chandler that Deal hit him first, kicked him in
his genitals, pushed him down the stairs, swung a hammer at him, tried to run
him over with her car, and threatened him with a gun. Officer Chandler
testified that Hinz did not mention anything about a hammer, being kicked in
the genitals, or being threatened with a gun. Tr. at 82. Officer Chandler also
stated that if Hinz had given him that information, it would have been in his
report. Id.
[10] At trial, Deal claimed that Hinz was the initial aggressor. Id. at 19. She
testified that he pulled her hair, struck her in the face, held a knife to her throat,
and hit her in the face with a hammer which caused redness, bruising, and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1508-CR-1067| April 20, 2016 Page 5 of 6
scratches on her face and neck. Photographic evidence of Deal’s injuries was
introduced at trial. She acknowledged that she might have hit Hinz, but only
because she was trying to break free from his grasp.
[11] The State provided sufficient evidence to rebut Hinz’s claim of self-defense. In
essence, Hinz requests us to reweigh the evidence and judge witness credibility,
which is for the trier of fact. Harrison v. State, 32 N.E.3d 240, 247 (Ind. Ct. App.
2015), trans. denied. Consequently, Hinz’s claim of self-defense fails and we
affirm his convictions.
[12] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1508-CR-1067| April 20, 2016 Page 6 of 6