Jazzmen Bails v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 12 2018, 9:58 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Evan Matthew Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jazzmen Bails, December 12, 2018
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-761
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Clayton A.
Appellee-Respondent. Graham, Judge
The Honorable Steven J. Rubick,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G07-1706-CM-23153
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-761 | December 12, 2018 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] On June 18, 2017, Jazzmen Bails went to the home of Denise Fugett and
punched her in the eye, knocking her unconscious, after Bails said she received
calls from Fugett and Fugett’s daughters threatening her life and the lives of her
children. As a result of the altercation, Bails was charged with Class A
misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. The trial court found Bails
guilty as charged. Bails contends that the State failed to produce sufficient
evidence to rebut her self-defense claim. Because we disagree, we affirm. 1
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On the evening of June 18, 2017, Bails left her residence and traveled to
Fugett’s residence after receiving voicemails and calls from Fugett and Fugett’s
daughters threatening her life and the lives of her children, after Bails posted
information relating to Fugett’s husband’s criminal history on Facebook. Bails
texted Fugett that she was coming to Fugett’s residence to “beat [Fugett’s a**]
and [her] daughter’s a[**].” Tr. Vol. II p. 27.
[3] Upon arriving at Fugett’s residence, Bails began yelling at Fugett and her
daughters, attempting to coax them from inside the residence. While Bails
continued to yell outside, Fugett called the police. At approximately 9:44 p.m.,
1
This case was set for an oral argument on November 15, 2018, at North Central High School in
Indianapolis. However, due to inclement weather the oral argument was cancelled. While we believe that we
can resolve the matter without rescheduling, we sincerely thank both parties and the school for their
willingness to participate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-761 | December 12, 2018 Page 2 of 6
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officers Scott Charleswood and John
Henderson arrived at Fugett’s residence. Fugett came out to meet the officers
on her front porch. Officer Charleswood observed Bails standing near a car
yelling in an angry and aggressive tone at Fugett and Fugett’s daughters. Bails
pushed her way onto the porch without answering Officer Charleswood’s
inquiry into what the problem was. At this point, Fugett’s two daughters
stepped in front of Fugett to shield her from Bails as Bails began throwing
punches, and Fugett attempted to punch back. At some point, Bails landed a
punch which knocked Fugett unconscious.
[4] On June 22, 2017, the State charged Bails with one count of Class A
misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. Following a bench trial held on
March 8, 2018, the trial court found Bails guilty as charged and sentenced her
to 365 days of incarceration, with sixty days executed and the rest suspended to
probation.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Bails contends that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to rebut her
self-defense claim. “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.” Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 801 (Ind.
2002). When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the trial court’s
decision. Tharpe v. State, 955 N.E.2d 836, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-761 | December 12, 2018 Page 3 of 6
It is the factfinder’s role, not ours, to weigh the evidence and assess witness
credibility to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support a
conviction. Id. To preserve this structure, when we are confronted with
conflicting evidence, we must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s
ruling. Id. “We affirm a conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find
the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. “It is
therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis
of innocence; rather, the evidence is sufficient if an inference reasonably may be
drawn from it to support the trial court’s decision.” Id.[6] Self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Bryant v. State,
984 N.E.2d 240, 250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. To prevail on a self-
defense claim, the defendant must establish that she (1) was in a place where
she had a right to be; (2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in
the violence; and (3) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.
Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800. “Reasonable fear” requires both a subjective belief
that death or great bodily harm will occur and an objective belief such that a
reasonable person under the circumstances would hold that same belief of
harm. Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342, 349 (Ind. 2013). A defendant,
however, is not justified in using force if that person “has entered into combat
with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from
the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the
other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful actions.”
Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2. When a defendant claims self-defense, the State must
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-761 | December 12, 2018 Page 4 of 6
rebut at least one element of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt by
presenting additional evidence or relying on the evidence in its case-in-chief.
Tharpe, 955 N.E.2d at 844–45.
[7] The State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Bails’s self-defense claim. First,
Bails had no right to be at Fugett’s residence: Fugett never invited Bails to the
residence and, in fact, called Bails’s godmother to have someone come remove
Bails from the residence. Moreover, Bails was the initial aggressor and
participated willingly in the fighting. Officer Charleswood only observed
aggressive behavior from Bails. Bails refused to tell the officer what the problem
was, charged through a group of people trying to stop her, and began throwing
punches at Fugett and Fugett’s daughters. Fugett did not throw the first punch
but, rather, hid behind her daughters as they shielded her from Bails’s punches.
Finally, while Bails might have genuinely believed she was going to be killed or
suffer great bodily injury, that belief was not reasonable under the
circumstances. A reasonable person receiving threatening voicemails and
fearing for her life would not leave the safety of her own home and travel to the
residence of the person making those threats. Bails even admits that in
“hindsight, it certainly may not have been the correct decision under all the
circumstances.” Appellant’s Br. p. 9. Additionally, two police officers had
arrived on the scene prior to the fight. When asked by officers what the problem
was, a reasonable person would have sought police protection instead of
running onto the porch towards the person she feared was going to cause her
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-761 | December 12, 2018 Page 5 of 6
grave harm. Bails has failed to establish that the State produced insufficient
evidence to rebut her claim of self-defense.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-761 | December 12, 2018 Page 6 of 6