Andrew Swank v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
71A03-1606-CR-1395
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- Early morning altercation on Sept. 22, 2015 between defendant Andrew Swank and his uncle Donald over clothes in a van that Donald was driving. Swank threatened Donald by phone before Donald arrived at the house.
- Inside the house Donald retrieved an aluminum baseball bat and was yelling and banging on the stove; Erik (their father) intervened and told Swank to leave via the back door.
- Swank left with his backpack, walked to the passenger side of the van, leaned over the windshield, pointed a .22 pistol at Donald on the porch/driver side, and announced he would shoot; Donald did not retreat.
- Swank fired, striking Donald in the abdomen; Donald required emergency surgery and resection of part of his bowel and colon.
- State charged Swank with Level 3 felony aggravated battery (substantial risk of death). Swank admitted the shooting and risk of death; trial focused solely on whether the shooting was justified by self-defense.
- Jury rejected self-defense and convicted; trial court imposed a 12-year sentence. Swank appealed, arguing the State failed to rebut his self-defense claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Swank’s claim of self-defense | State: Evidence showed Donald was on porch/driver’s side while Swank was on passenger side with the van between them; witnesses testified Donald left the bat inside; thus Swank could not reasonably believe deadly force was necessary | Swank: He had withdrawn from the initial confrontation; Donald had a bat and approached him by the van; Swank feared being struck and shot in imminent self-defense | Court: Affirmed conviction — reasonable evidence supported the jury’s rejection of self-defense because witnesses placed Donald without the bat and separated by the van, negating a reasonable belief in the necessity of deadly force |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. 2011) (self-defense is a legal justification for otherwise criminal conduct)
- Littler v. State, 871 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. 2007) (defendant must have subjective belief and that belief must be objectively reasonable)
- King v. State, 61 N.E.3d 1275 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (when self-defense is supported by evidence, State must negate at least one element; sufficiency review considers only evidence supporting the verdict)