Karen Bush v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1611-CR-2512
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 30, 2017Background
- On June 10–11, 2016, Karen Bush and Michelle Clifton were involved in two related confrontations near Bush’s residence; police had earlier separated parties and instructed them to stay apart.
- About two hours after the initial incident, Bush approached the group where Clifton and Bush’s cousin Stephon Jake were arguing and sprayed Clifton in the face with mace multiple times; others nearby were also affected.
- Witness testimony conflicted about whether Clifton was armed: Jake testified Clifton produced a straight razor/knife and threatened to cut her; Clifton and Officer Lorah said no weapon was found and Clifton showed her purse for inspection.
- Bush claimed she maced Clifton in defense of herself and Jake because Clifton was holding a knife and was coming toward them; Jake’s statements to police were inconsistent about whether a knife was involved.
- The trial court (bench trial) discredited the weapon claim, found Bush used unreasonable force, convicted her of battery resulting in bodily injury (Class A misdemeanor), and sentenced her.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to sustain battery conviction and negate self-defense | State: testimony showed Bush approached and maced Clifton without provocation; no evidence Clifton threatened or lunged; trier of fact may credit that version | Bush: sprayed Clifton to prevent imminent harm from a knife/razor Clifton was holding and thus acted in defense of herself and Jake | Court: Affirmed conviction. Evidence permitted finding Bush did not reasonably fear great bodily harm or used excessive force, so self-defense was negated |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. 2002) (elements and burden for self-defense; appellate review standard)
- Harmon v. State, 849 N.E.2d 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (amount of force judged by urgency; excessive force defeats self-defense)
- Barton v. State, 490 N.E.2d 317 (Ind. 1986) (trier of fact may choose which testimony to credit)
- Scott v. State, 867 N.E.2d 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or assess credibility)
- Rodriguez v. State, 714 N.E.2d 667 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (sufficient evidence can rebut self-defense when defendant's story conflicts with other testimony)