Keith Cobbs v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1606-CR-1446
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- On June 9, 2015, Keith Cobbs entered a neighbor’s yard and got into a verbal and then physical altercation with Teddy Weems.
- The two scratched each other; Weems pinned Cobbs to the ground and then released him, told him to “let it go,” and began walking away.
- After Weems started to leave and was unarmed, Cobbs retrieved a metal crowbar and struck Weems multiple times in the back of the head and wrist, causing serious injuries requiring staples and stitches.
- Cobbs was charged; a jury convicted him of Level 6 felony criminal recklessness for the crowbar attack but acquitted him of misdemeanor battery based on the initial scratching.
- Cobbs claimed self-defense at trial; the jury rejected that defense and the trial court sentenced him to jail, home detention, GPS monitoring, and probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Cobbs’s claim of self-defense | State: Evidence shows Cobbs did not withdraw and used excessive force after the fight ended; thus self-defense negated | Cobbs: He acted in self-defense when he struck Weems with the crowbar | Court: Affirmed; evidence sufficient to rebut self-defense because Cobbs engaged in mutual combat and failed to withdraw before using deadly force |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. 2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence to rebut self-defense)
- Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 1999) (ways State may meet burden to negate self-defense)
- Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. 2003) (elements required to establish self-defense)
- Shoultz v. State, 995 N.E.2d 647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (a provocateur or participant in violence is not without fault for self-defense)