Preview:

FILED
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
Mar 02 2011, 9:32 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: TIMOTHY J. BURNS Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana GARY R. ROM Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
BRIAN BEAMAN, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A02-1005-CR-583

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Rebekah Pierson-Treacy, Judge The Honorable Shatrese Flowers, Commissioner Cause No. 49F19-1001-CM-1490

March 2, 2011 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION FRIEDLANDER, Judge

Brian Beaman was convicted after a bench trial of Battery1 as a class A misdemeanor. He raises the following restated issue for our review: Was there sufficient evidence to support his battery conviction and to negate his claim of self-defense? We affirm. The facts most favorable to the conviction are that Beaman returned to his former place of employment, a moving company, just a few days after his employment was terminated in order to confirm the correct address on his W-2 tax form and to inquire about moving straps Beaman believed were his personal property left behind there. Once there, Beaman encountered Joe Jones, his former employer. Beaman, who appeared "jittery," was in the reception area, while Jones was in an office that was separated from the reception area by a wall with a window opening and a locked door. Transcript. at 14. Jones was standing approximately five feet from the window while talking with Beaman. Jones left the office area to find his wife in order to confirm the correct address on Beaman's W-2 tax form while Beaman remained in the reception area. After Jones returned, the two discussed the moving straps. Beaman wanted to search in the office and moving trucks for the straps as he thought they were his personal property. Jones objected to Beaman remaining in the office unsupervised because Jones had to leave for his other job as a bus driver. Jones also asserted that the moving straps were property belonging to his moving business and not that of Beaman. Beaman and Jones began to argue with each other loudly with Beaman using "dread words" and appearing increasingly more angry. Id. at 17. Jones asked Beaman to
1

Ind. Code Ann.

Download Brian Beaman v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law