self-defense claim in Indiana

2025And we will reverse the defendant’s conviction “only if no reasonable person could say that” the defendant’s self-defense claim “was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt.” Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 801 (Ind. 2002).

2015In order to prevail upon a self-defense claim when deadly force is used, a defendant must show that he: “(1) was in a place where he 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 v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799 , Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1403-CR-117 | February 9, 2015 Page 10 of 15 800 (Ind. 2002); see also Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2 .3 Proof of a “reasonable” fear of death or great bodily harm under the self-defense statute requires both a subjective belief by

2018See, e.g., Henson, 786 N.E.2d at 279 (concluding that the evidence did not support the giving of a self-defense instruction).

2018Rather, the only issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in holding that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support giving the self-defense instruction. [10] A valid claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an act that is otherwise defined as “criminal.” I.C. § 35-41-3-2;2 see also, Henson, 786 N.E.2d at 277 .

2025The State bears the burden of disproving the defendant’s self-defense claim, either “by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense—or by simply relying on the sufficiency of its evidence in chief.” Id. (citing Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 1999)).

2016The State may meet its burden to disprove a self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt “by rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the defendant did Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 75A03-1510-CR-1772 | August 12, 2016 Page 8 of 11 not act in self-defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief.” Miller, 720 N.E.2d at 700 . [14] Garland claims that “[a]ny injuries or choking sensations were the result of self- defense on [his] part.” Appellant’s Br. at 8.

2019Weedman v. State , 21 N.E.3d 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). [6] On March 30, 2017, Weedman filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the self-defense instruction or request an instruction containing the complete definition of self-defense.

2016Weedman v. State, 21 N.E.3d 873, 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. [9] When a self-defense claim is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State bears the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements.

2025See Kimbrough v. State, 911 N.E.2d 621, 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (explaining State’s burden to negate at least one element of self-defense).

2019See Kimbrough , 911 N.E.2d at 635 (explaining the State's burden to negate at least one of the elements of self-defense).

2017Boyer v. State, 883 N.E.2d 158, 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

2012See Bover v. State, 883 N.E.2d 158, 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor and to negate the defendant’s claim of self-defense); Hobson v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1118, 1121-1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (concluding that the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut the defendant’s self-defense claim, even though the victim was the initial aggressor, where the defendant chose to fight back, and that the defendant’s arguments to the contrary amounted to an invitation to reweigh the evidence and the credib

2018Brand v. State, 766 N.E.2d 772, 780 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1708-CR-1867 | May 29, 2018 Page 6 of 13 trans. denied.

2017See Brand v. State, 766 N.E.2d 772, 777 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (requirements of a self-defense claim), reh’g denied, trans. denied.

2001See also Birdsong v. State, 685 N.E.2d 42, 46 (Ind.1997) (noting that deadly force was unreasonable because victims were shot several times after being incapacitated); Schlegel v. State, 238 Ind. 374 , 150 N.E.2d 563, 567 (Ind.1958) (holding that although the first shot might have been justified in self-defense, a second shot to the victim's body cannot be so justified when danger of death or great bodily harm ceases).

1999See Birdsong, 685 N.E.2d at 46 (viewing the fact that a defendant shot his victims several times supported the defendant’s murder conviction and extinguished his self-defense claim); Hill v. State, 532 N.E.2d 1153, 1153 (Ind.1989) (finding sufficient evidence existed to negate the defendant’s self-defense claim where the defendant shot the victim a second time after the victim fell to his hands and knees); Schlegel v. State, 150 N.E.2d 563, 567 , 238 Ind. 374, 383 (1958) (explaining that where the first shot is fired in self-defense, a second shot is not if it is unnecessary for the defendant

2019Reid did not claim self-defense to the trial court. 4 Accordingly, Reid’s self-defense argument on appeal is waived. [14] Waiver notwithstanding, we will address the merits of Reid’s self-defense claim. “‘A valid claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.’” Ervin v. State, 114 N.E.3d 888, 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 2000)), trans. denied.

2015“A valid claim of self- defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.” Id. [7] To prevail on a self-defense claim, Jones must show that he: (1) was in a place where he 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.

2024The court determined that this but-for test barring a self-defense claim was “too broad.” Id. (quoting Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390, 396 (Ind. 2001)).

2024See id. [13] Although the self-defense instruction misstates the law, we still must determine if the error was the basis for the jury’s decision to convict.

2015Harmon v. State, 849 N.E.2d 726, 731 (Ind. 2006).

2013The amount of force that a person may use depends on the urgency of the situation, and the self-defense claim will fail if the person uses “more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances.” Harmon v. State, 849 N.E.2d 726, 730-31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

2019“If the defendant wishes to introduce either type of character evidence, she must first introduce appreciable evidence of the victim’s aggression to substantiate the self-defense claim.” Id.

2015However, even to do this, Shelly was first required to introduce “appreciable evidence of the victim’s aggression to substantiate the self-defense claim.” Holder, 571 N.E.2d at 1254 .

2020Ervin v. State, 114 N.E.3d 888, 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied.

2019Reid did not claim self-defense to the trial court. 4 Accordingly, Reid’s self-defense argument on appeal is waived. [14] Waiver notwithstanding, we will address the merits of Reid’s self-defense claim. “‘A valid claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.’” Ervin v. State, 114 N.E.3d 888, 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 2000)), trans. denied.

2019Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). [24] Still, “the force used must be proportionate to the requirements of the situation.” Weedman v. State, 21 N.E.3d 873, 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing McKinney v. State, 873 N.E.2d 630, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied), trans. denied.

2015See McKinney v. State, 873 N.E.2d 630, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied.

2018Hood v. State, 877 N.E.2d 492, 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 20017), trans. denied.

2016Hood v. State, 877 N.E.2d 492, 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). [14] In furtherance of his claim of self-defense, Fennessee testified at trial that Watson was the bigger man, Watson had threatened to “f--- up” and to kill Fennessee, Watson had claimed that he could kill Fennessee and get away with it because of the protective order Fennessee’s wife had obtained, Watson had shot someone in the State of Tennessee, Watson had pushed a woman down in a dispute over a dog, federal marshals had raided Fennessee’s residence looking for Watson on drug and firearms charges, Watson was known to promote animal f

2018See Harris v. State, 268 Ind. 594 , 377 N.E.2d 632, 634 (1978) (concluding that the trial court did not commit fundamental error when it failed to sua sponte instruct the jury on self-defense, even though there was some evidence that might support a self-defense claim).

2018See Harris v. State, 268 Ind. 594 , 377 N.E.2d 632, 634 (1978) (concluding that the trial court did not commit fundamental error when it failed to sua sponte instruct the jury on self-defense, even though there was some evidence that might support a self-defense claim).

2018Initially, the burden is on the defendant to provide evidence that: (1) he was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) he acted without fault; and (3) he had a reasonable fear of “the imminent use of unlawful force.” Dixson v. State, 22 N.E.3d 836, 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (noting that, in cases that do not involve deadly force, the defendant does not have to provide evidence of fear of “death or serious bodily harm,” but merely reasonable fear of the “imminent use of unlawful force”), trans. denied. [11] After the defendant has provided evidence of those three factors, the burden switches

2017However, we have determined that while a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury is undoubtedly required in a case involving deadly force, “when a case does not involve deadly force, a defendant claiming self-defense must only show that he was protecting himself from what he ‘reasonably believe[d] to be the imminent use of unlawful force.’” Dixson, 22 N.E.3d at 839 (quoting Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2 (c)). 2 A self-defense claim is available to an initial aggressor only if he or she withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person his or her intent to withdraw but the oth

2017We disagree. [23] The trial court used the Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction for self-defense, and the pattern instruction “tracks the language of the self-defense and defense of another statute.” Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342, 349 (Ind. 2013).

2015Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342, 349 (Ind. 2013).

2016While evidence of a person’s character is generally inadmissible to prove action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, see Ind. Evidence Rule 404(a), “witnesses other than the defendant should be allowed to provide testimony to corroborate the specific prior acts by the victim that a defendant uses to support a claim of self-defense on the grounds of reasonable fear.” Littler v. State, 871 N.E.2d 276, 278 (Ind.2007) (citing Brand v. State, 766 N.E.2d 772, 782 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied).

2012It points out that in Littler v. State, 871 N.E.2d 276, 279 (Ind.2007), our supreme court held “that the phrase ‘reasonably believes,’ as used in the Indiana self-defense statute, requires both subjective belief that force was necessary to prevent ... injury, and that such actual belief was one that a reasonable person would have under the circumstances.” Arguably, this holding conflicts with tendered instructions 4’s language that a self-defense claim “can only be determined from the standpoint of the Accused.... ” App. p. 103.

2016Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-657 | December 12, 2016 Page 3 of 6 Discussion and Decision [7] Danner argues that to sustain a self-defense claim, the defendant must prove that “(1) he was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) he acted without fault; and (3) he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.” Cole v. State, 28 N.E.3d 1126, 1137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing Coleman v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1160, 1165 (Ind. 2011)).

2016See Cole, 28 N.E.3d at 1137 (holding a defendant’s self-defense claim failed when evidence showed he instigated the fight by first verbally attacking the victim and putting his hands on the victim to pin him against a counter and then, after the victim pushed him away and said he did not want to fight, willingly escalated the aggression by grabbing the victim by the neck).

2013Boyer v. State, 883 N.E.2d 158, 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting White v. State, 699 N.E.2d 630, 635 (Ind. 1998)).

2008White v. State, 699 N.E.2d 630, 635 (Ind.1998). 3 The State may disprove one of these elements by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act to defend herself or by relying on evidence elicited in its case-in-chief.

2012See Holder, 571 N.E.2d at 1254 (providing that “[i]f the defendant wishes to introduce either type of character evidence, [the defendant] must first introduce appreciable evidence of the victim’s aggression to substantiate the self-defense claim” and concluding that the exclusion of testimony regarding the victim’s character 7 did not deprive the defendant of the due process of law); see also Brooks, 683 N.E.2d at 576-577 (holding that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of specific instances of the victim’s conduct).

2001In a homicide prosecution, a self-defense claim can prevail only if the defendant had a “reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.” Brooks v. State, 683 N.E.2d 574, 577 (Ind.1997).

2012Sanders v. State, 704 N.E.2d 119, 123 (Ind. 1999).

2008Sanders v. State, 704 N.E.2d 119, 123 (Ind.1999).