Opinion
Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-2210
05-28-2021
Todd RIGGS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Attorney for Appellant: Jim Comerford, Marion County Public Defender Agency, Indianapolis, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Caryn N. Szyper, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorney for Appellant: Jim Comerford, Marion County Public Defender Agency, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Caryn N. Szyper, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pyle, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Todd Riggs ("Riggs") appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for Class B misdemeanor battery. Riggs argues that there was insufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. Concluding that there was sufficient evidence, we affirm his conviction.
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.
--------
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether there was sufficient evidence to rebut Riggs’ claim of self-defense.
Facts
[3] Riggs hired Grover Upton ("Upton"), a general contractor, to install gutters on Riggs’ mother's home. Upton provided Riggs with a quote for the installation of the gutters, and he later agreed to file insurance paperwork on Riggs’ behalf. Upton completed the job in December 2019. However, Upton did not file the insurance paperwork. Riggs, who was unhappy with Upton's failure to file the paperwork, left a note on Upton's business door and several voicemails for Upton that were "very volatile in tone and nature." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 34).
[4] In early January 2020, Upton met with Riggs in the kitchen of a farmhouse located near his business. At some point during the conversation, Upton communicated his desire to terminate his business relationship with Riggs. As Upton stood up to "open the door and dismiss" Riggs, Riggs "grabbed [Upton] by the wrist ... and kind of swung [him] around." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 12, 13). Riggs then shoved Upton against a counter and started punching him in his midsection. As Upton tried to get away, Riggs knocked Upton to the floor. Upton's wife, who was in an adjacent room, entered the kitchen after hearing the "distinctive and definite sounds of a physical altercation[.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 35-36). There, she observed Riggs on top of Upton. Upton's wife then demanded that Riggs leave, and he eventually complied.
[5] In February 2020, the State charged Riggs with Class B misdemeanor battery. The case proceeded to a bench trial in November 2020. Upton and his wife testified to the facts above. Riggs also testified on his own behalf. On direct examination, he admitted that he had placed his hands on Upton's shoulders and that Upton had fallen to the ground. Riggs stated that he had put his hands on Upton because Upton had "reach[ed] into his pocket, and it spooked the heck out of [him]." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 49).
[6] During closing arguments, Riggs’ counsel focused on Upton's movement towards the door and argued that Riggs had acted in self-defense. Thereafter, the trial court found Riggs guilty as charged. In making its decision, the trial court explained:
Mr. Riggs, by your own admission, whether you were spooked or not, you do admit through your testimony that when Mr. Upton [p]ut his hands in his pocket, that you did put your hands on his shoulders. And the testimony is he went to the ground, although you say that you didn't push him to the ground, but you admit that you did touch him. That's your testimony, and it's clear in the record.
And based on that, you did touch Mr. Upton, regardless if you thought -- now [defense counsel] is claiming that it was self-defense. And he's claiming that it was self-defense based on you didn't know what was in Mr. Upton's pocket. However[,] the action initiated was by you.
(Tr. Vol. 2 at 58). The trial court sentenced Riggs to 180 days in the Marion County Jail suspended to probation.
[7] Riggs now appeals.
Decision
[8] Riggs contends that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut his self-defense claim. A valid claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. IND. CODE § 35-41-3-2(a) ; Wallace v. State , 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 2000). However, our General Assembly has provided that 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." I.C. § 35-41-3-2(g)(3) (emphasis added).
[9] To prevail on a claim of self-defense, the 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. Coleman v. State , 946 N.E.2d 1160, 1165 (Ind. 2011). To sustain a defendant's conviction, the State must negate at least one of the elements of the self-defense claim. Wallace , 725 N.E.2d at 840. The State may meet its burden by rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief. Miller v. State , 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind. 1999). Whether the State has met its burden is a question of fact for the factfinder. Id. If a defendant is convicted despite his claim of self-defense, this Court will reverse only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson v. State , 770 N.E.2d 799, 800-01 (Ind. 2002).
[10] The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same as the standard for any sufficiency of the evidence claim. Id. at 801. We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Drane v. State , 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Id. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may be reasonably drawn to support the verdict. Id. We will reverse a conviction only if no reasonable person could say that the State negated the defendant's self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson , 770 N.E.2d at 800-01.
[11] Here, the State presented sufficient evidence in its case-in-chief to rebut Riggs’ claim of self-defense. At trial, the State presented evidence that as Upton stood up to open the door and dismiss Riggs from the farmhouse, Riggs grabbed Upton by the wrist and swung him around. Furthermore, Riggs admitted that he had placed his hands upon Upton. In sum, the evidence supports the trial court's finding that Riggs instigated the violence that had ensued and was the initial aggressor. See McEwen v. State , 695 N.E.2d 79, 90 (Ind. 1998) (holding that the defendant's actions as the initial aggressor negated the defendant's self-defense claim).
[12] Riggs’ argument that the evidence shows he acted in self-defense because Upton walked towards him with his hand in his pocket is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witness, which we will not do. See Drane , 867 N.E.2d at 146. Because there was probative evidence from which the trial court, as trier of fact, could have found that the State rebutted Riggs’ self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm his conviction.
[13] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.