Jasmine McCoy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 17 2019, 9:03 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
Kevin Wild Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Samantha M. Sumcad
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jasmine McCoy, May 17, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2789
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven J. Rubick,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G10-1712-CM-47916
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2789 | May 17, 2019 Page 1 of 4
Statement of the Case
[1] Jasmine McCoy appeals her conviction for battery, as a Class A misdemeanor,
following a bench trial. McCoy raises a single issue for our review, namely,
whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut her defense of self-
defense. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On December 12, 2017, Luther Starks was working as a cashier at a Dollar
General store in Indianapolis. While Starks was checking McCoy out of the
store, McCoy “was exhibiting rude behavior” toward Starks, and in response
Starks refused “to double bag” some of the items McCoy was purchasing. Tr.
at 4. They then got into a “verbal argument” before one of Starks’ managers
sent him “to the back.” Id. at 5.
[3] As Starks was heading to the backroom, McCoy “came over . . . and was
bumping into [him]” and “essentially trying to fight” him. Id. Starks then
“decided to put her in a headlock” to avoid, he later testified under oath,
“further harm” from coming “to either” of them. Id.
[4] “[A]fter a minute” of having McCoy in a headlock, another man intervened,
Starks released McCoy, and the third party placed himself between McCoy and
Starks. Id. at 6. Nonetheless, McCoy “decided to mace” Starks at that point,
which caused Starks severe pain. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2789 | May 17, 2019 Page 2 of 4
[5] The State charged McCoy with battery as a Class A misdemeanor for her use of
pepper spray against Starks. At her ensuing bench trial, she asserted that she
had acted in self-defense. The trial court rejected her defense and found her
guilty. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] On appeal, McCoy argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to
rebut her claim of self-defense. Self-defense is a valid justification for an
otherwise criminal act. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 699 (Ind. 1999). A
defendant must establish that she was in a place where she had the right to be,
acted without fault, and was in reasonable fear or apprehension of death or
great bodily harm. Id. at 699-700. However, self-defense is unavailable to a
defendant who “provoke[s], instigate[s,] or participate[s] willingly in the
violence.” Brooks v. State, 683 N.E.2d 574, 577 (Ind. 1997).
[7] Once a defendant claims self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving
at least one of the elements of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Miller,
720 N.E.2d at 700. It may meet its burden by rebutting the defense directly, by
affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by relying on
the sufficiency of its evidence in chief. Id. Whether the State has met its burden
is a question for the trier of fact. Id.
[8] When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut her claim
of self-defense, the standard of review remains the same as for any sufficiency of
evidence claim. Id. at 699. We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2789 | May 17, 2019 Page 3 of 4
credibility of witnesses but look solely to the evidence most favorable to the
judgment with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. We will
affirm a conviction where such evidence and reasonable inferences are
substantial evidence of probative value sufficient to support the judgment. Id.
[9] The State readily presented sufficient evidence to negate McCoy’s claim of self-
defense. Starks testified that, after his manager had intervened at the cash
register and sent Starks to a back room, McCoy pursued him. He further
testified that, after he had released McCoy from the headlock and a third party
had positioned himself between Starks and McCoy, McCoy then pepper-
sprayed Starks by reaching around the third party. That testimony was
sufficient to show that McCoy provoked, instigated, or willingly participated in
the acts that precipitated the headlock, and it was also sufficient to show that, at
the time she pepper-sprayed Starks, McCoy was no longer in reasonable fear for
her own safety. McCoy’s argument on appeal is merely a request for this Court
to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. We affirm her conviction for
battery, as a Class A misdemeanor.
[10] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2789 | May 17, 2019 Page 4 of 4