Billy E. Oliver v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A03-1606-CR-1519
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- On Feb. 27, 2016, Billy E. Oliver and his then-girlfriend Jeanette Gordon had a dispute while Oliver moved out; the dispute concerned ownership of a television.
- Oliver pushed Gordon against a wall, knocked her to the ground, climbed on top of her, and repeatedly struck her temple area, causing a severe black eye and other visible injuries.
- Police arrived; an officer observed swelling above Gordon’s left eye, a mark above the eye, blood on her shirt, and that she appeared hysterical and in pain.
- The State charged Oliver with Class A misdemeanor domestic battery; following a bench trial, the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to 180 days’ incarceration.
- On appeal Oliver argued the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence about Gordon’s prior bad acts and mental state (proffered to support self-defense), and that his sentence was inappropriate.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Oliver waived self-defense (it was not raised at trial), the exclusion of evidence was within the trial court’s discretion, and the sentence was not inappropriate given the offense and Oliver’s significant criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Oliver's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of proffered evidence (prior bad acts / victim’s mental state) | Trial court properly excluded evidence; discretion to admit/exclude was not abused | Evidence was relevant to show self-defense and victim’s propensity/mental state | Affirmed; exclusion within trial court discretion and harmless; ruling sustainable on record |
| Claim of self-defense | No self-defense was pled or argued at trial; burden to raise at trial | Evidence would support self-defense justification | Waived on appeal because self-defense is an affirmative defense that must be raised at trial |
| Appropriateness of 180-day sentence under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | Sentence appropriate given nature of offense and defendant’s character/criminal history | Sentence inappropriate because altercation was mutual | Affirmed; sentence not inappropriate given serious injury and extensive criminal history/probation violations |
| Whether mutual altercation mitigates sentence | Mutuality alone insufficient to render sentence inappropriate | Mutuality should lessen punishment | Rejected; mutuality inconsistent with defendant’s trial position and insufficient to show inappropriateness |
Key Cases Cited
- Farris v. State, 818 N.E.2d 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (admission/exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 1999) (self-defense elements and justification principles)
- Lafary v. Lafary, 476 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (affirmative defenses must be raised at trial; may not be asserted for first time on appeal)
- Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (Appellate Rule 7(B) review focuses on nature and depravity of offense and what it reveals about defendant’s character)
- Brown v. State, 760 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (principles guiding appellate review of sentence under Rule 7(B))
- Collins v. State, 966 N.E.2d 96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (trial court rulings will be upheld if sustainable on any legal theory supported by record)