Opinion
23A-CR-2900
06-20-2024
Dalandus Glasco, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Talisha R. Griffin, Timothy J. Burns. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita, Michelle Hawk Kazmierczak.
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Christina R. Klineman, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49D17-2305-CM-14604
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Talisha R. Griffin, Timothy J. Burns.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita, Michelle Hawk Kazmierczak.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Brown, Judge.
[¶1] Dalandus Glasco appeals his conviction for battery resulting in bodily injury as a class A misdemeanor. Glasco raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction and negate his claim of self-defense. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] On May 6, 2023, Benton Hall, a manager in the meat department at Safeway Foods in Indianapolis who had been with the company for forty-one years, was working with Glasco, Tony Elliot, and another employee. Glasco worked as "a meat cutter." Transcript Volume II at 24. Hall noticed "a lot of holes in the counter" and it "seem[ed] like things were slowed down through the day." Id. He "needed a couple of things cut in the counter and asked [Glasco] to cut them," Glasco "walked through the counter and was just out there for awhile just walking around," and Hall spoke with the store manager. Id. at 24-25. Hall went back to the cutting room and told Glasco "if he wasn't going to get anything else done he can go ahead and go home." Id. at 25. Glasco "smarted off something." Id. Elliot "hollered across the room '[a]re you going to take that from him,'" Glasco "went over and flipped the man off," and Elliot said something back. Id. at 26. Hall started to walk toward Glasco and Elliot "because [he] knew it was getting out of hand," and Glasco and Elliot were "talking loud" and "started pushing this meat cart, maybe six (6) foot tall, three (3) or four (4) feet wide, back-and-forth." Id. at 26-27. Hall "went over there, walked around, and walked in front of [Glasco] . . . and told him to cool it, enough is enough." Id. at 27. Hall then "turned [his] head over to the right . . . and told [Elliot] to calm it down, cool it." Id. at 27-28. As Hall "turned around and started heading back," Glasco punched him in the face. Id. at 28. Hall fell down and was "out for a little bit," "dazed," and "spitting blood." Id. at 29. Hall called the police who took photographs of Hall. Glasco left the store before the police arrived.
[¶3] The State charged Glasco with battery resulting in bodily injury as a class A misdemeanor. The court held a bench trial at which it heard testimony from Hall and Glasco and admitted the photographs of Hall. Hall testified that Glasco and Elliot started pushing the meat cart back and forth, and when asked "how violent is that pushing back-and-forth," he stated: "Just a small hard push, more like play almost, but their tone - I knew it was getting serious." Id. at 27. Hall indicated that, when he walked in front of Glasco, Elliot was about eight feet away. Glasco testified that, after he and Elliot pushed the cart back and forth, Elliot knocked over the cart and a barrel, approached him, and tried to grab his neck and, at that point, he and Elliot "started swinging at each other." Id. at 44. He testified he was trying to exit the room. He testified: "As me and the gentleman that's swinging at each other, I just see someone coming real quickly - coming in between us . . . then that's when [Hall] got hit." Id. at 45. He also testified: "I felt like he was coming at me." Id.
[¶4] Hall was recalled to the witness stand and testified that he never saw Glasco and Elliott "throwing punches at each other." Id. at 50. When asked "there was no back-and-forth fighting when you stepped in," he responded, "No. There was a cart between them." Id. When asked "[y]ou stepped in to break up the cart being pushed back-and-forth," he replied, "I went over there because . . . an argument was started and I knew it was going to escalate possibly farther, so I went over there to address it. And I went over there to address it, and, and that's what happened." Id. He indicated he did not see Elliot attempt to grab Glasco's neck. When asked, "[i]n total, how many punches were thrown in this entire incident," he answered "[o]ne," and when asked "and that's the one that [Glasco] threw when he punched you," he replied "[y]es." Id. The court found Glasco guilty and sentenced him to 180 days suspended to probation and ordered that he complete an anger management course.
Discussion
[¶5] The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to support Glasco's battery conviction and negate his claim of self-defense. Glasco argues the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction "because [] he was defending himself from an attack by a fellow employee, [and] he perceived that he was about to be attacked by his supervisor." Appellant's Brief at 7.
[¶6] At the time of the offense, Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c) provided "a person who knowingly or intentionally . . . touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner . . . commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor." The offense is a class A misdemeanor if it results in bodily injury to any other person. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(d). "A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person . . . from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force." Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c). "No person . . . shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person . . . by reasonable means necessary." Id.
Subsequently amended by Pub. L. No. 209-2023, § 2 (eff. Jul. 1, 2023).
[¶7] When a claim of self-defense is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State has the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002). If a defendant is convicted despite his claim of self-defense, we will reverse only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 800801. A mutual combatant, whether or not the initial aggressor, must declare an armistice before he or she may claim self-defense. Id. at 801; see Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(g) (providing "a person is not justified in using force if . . . the 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 action"). The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same as the standard for any sufficiency of the evidence claim. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 801. We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. If there is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact, then the verdict will not be disturbed. Id.
[¶8] The trial court heard testimony from Hall and Glasco. The trier of fact is entitled to determine which version of the incident to credit. Barton v. State, 490 N.E.2d 317, 318 (Ind. 1986), reh'g denied; Scott v. State, 867 N.E.2d 690, 695 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007), trans. denied. The court as the trier of fact was able to consider the extent to which the testimony of each witness was consistent with the testimony of another witness and was able to assess the credibility of the witnesses and weigh their testimony. We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses on appeal. See Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 801. The State presented evidence of a probative nature from which a reasonable trier of fact could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Glasco did not validly act in self-defense and that he was guilty of battery resulting in bodily injury as a class A misdemeanor. See Rodriguez v. State, 714 N.E.2d 667, 670-671 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) (noting the defendant's version of events differed from other testimony, declining to reweigh the evidence, and holding sufficient evidence existed to rebut the defendant's claim of self-defense), trans. denied.
[¶9] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Glasco's conviction.
[¶10] Affirmed.
May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.