Preview:

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. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: TIMOTHY J. BURNS Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana MATTHEW D. FISHER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

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

No. 49A02-0610-CR-864

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable David Shaheed, Judge Cause No. 49G14-0606-CM-102461

September 7, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION DARDEN, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE John Taylor ("Taylor") appeals his conviction, after a bench trial, of battery as a class A misdemeanor. We affirm. ISSUE Whether sufficient evidence exists to rebut Taylor's self-defense claim. FACTS On June 5, 2006, DeMarcus Hazelwood was walking near the intersection of New York and Delaware Streets in Marion County when he was approached by his coworker Taylor and another man, later identified as Bryan Johnson. Hazelwood and Taylor were embroiled in an on-going dispute at work. Taylor accused Hazelwood of telling their supervisors lies about him. He asked, "What are you calling them for or what are you lying on me for?" (Tr. 5). According to Taylor, as he spoke, Hazelwood placed his hand into his pocket. Suddenly, Taylor struck Hazelwood in the face, bloodying his nose. Taylor then "grabbed [Hazelwood] and tackled [him] to the ground." (Tr. 5). Taylor held Hazelwood down while Johnson kicked Hazelwood in the head and leg. (Tr. 6). The beating continued for approximately two or three minutes until a police officer who was driving past observed the incident and intervened. Hazelwood suffered a bloody nose, a contusion to his leg and a large, swollen knot above his left eye. On June 6, 2006, the State charged Taylor with battery as a class A misdemeanor. Taylor was tried before the bench on August 15, 2006. Hazelwood was the only witness for the State. He testified that he did not initiate the fight and was not carrying a weapon 2

at the time of the incident pursuant to the terms of his court-ordered probation on an unrelated charge. Subsequently, Taylor testified that he tackled Hazelwood because he believed that Hazelwood carried a box cutter for work and was retrieving it from his pocket. Taylor testified further that he never struck Hazelwood and that he saw the police officer return a box cutter to Hazelwood after the incident. After both sides rested, the trial court found Taylor guilty as charged, stating, [T]he reality is and the simple fact of the matter is even though a person has a right to defend themselves [sic], a person . . . who puts their [sic] hand in their pocket that in and of itself does not justify any assault, tackling, hitting someone in the mouth, hitting someone in the nose, whatever. If people could be attacked just because of the mere matter that you know of them and they put their hand in their pocket then there could be assaults all over the city. Putting a hand in a pocket is not considered generally to be a threatening gesture. So, based upon that the Court find [Taylor] guilty . . . . (Tr. 16-17). On September 12, 2006, the trial court imposed a 365-day sentence,

ordering 265 days suspended to probation. Taylor now appeals. DECISION Taylor argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense using the same standard as for any claim of insufficient evidence. Pinkston v. State, 821 N.E.2d 830, 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. If sufficient evidence of probative value supports the conclusion of the trier-of-fact, we will not disturb the verdict. Id. at 841-42. With regard to a claim of self-defense, we have previously stated the following: 3

[A] valid claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an act that is otherwise defined as `criminal.' I.C.

Download John Taylor v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law