Yulonda Glover a/k/a Bashon Glover v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: RUTH JOHNSON Indianapolis, Indiana STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana ALEX O. JAMES Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana FILED Oct 17 2008, 9:23 am IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA YULONDA GLOVER a/k/a BASHON GLOVER, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 49A02-0803-CR-275 APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Clark H. Rogers, Judge The Honorable Melissa Kramer, Commissioner Cause No. 49G16-0706-CM-104632 October 17, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION KIRSCH, Judge CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court Bashon Glover was convicted after a bench trial of battery 1 as a Class A misdemeanor. She appeals, raising one issue, which we restate as whether sufficient evidence was presented to rebut her claim of self-defense. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Glover approached Barbara Burnett as Burnett arrived home. Tr. at 10. The two, who had previously lived together and recently separated, argued, and Glover pushed Burnett and struck her in the face with an open hand causing a scratch on Burnett s face. Glover then sprayed mace into Burnett s face. Id. at 10-12. Burnett ran from Glover and called the police. Id. at 12. The State charged Glover with battery, a Class A misdemeanor. During a bench trial, Glover admitted to the battery but claimed that her actions were in self-defense. Id. at 25. The court found her guilty as charged. Glover now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION A challenge to sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is reviewed under the same standard as any sufficiency of the evidence claim. Boyer v. State, 883 N.E.2d 158, 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Williams v. State, 873 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We will consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id.; Robinson v. State, 835 N.E.2d 518, 523 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). We will affirm the conviction if sufficient probative evidence exists from which the 1 See IC 35-42-2-1. 2 fact finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Williams, 873 N.E.2d at 147; Robinson, 835 N.E.2d at 523. Glover maintains that there was insufficient evidence to rebut her claim of selfdefense. A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person . . . from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. IC 35-41-3-2(a). When a claim of self-defense is raised, the burden is on the State to disprove that claim, either by affirmatively showing that the defendant did not act to defend [herself] . . . or by relying on the evidence elicited in its case-in-chief. Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Glover testified that she struck Burnett [b]ecause she looked like she was about to hit me. Tr. at 25. However, the evidence most favorable to the verdict suggests otherwise. Both Burnett and another witness testified that Glover was the aggressor, that Glover first pushed Burnett, then struck her, then sprayed her with mace. Tr. at 10-12, 17. We believe there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the State successfully rebutted Glover s claim of selfdefense and to support Glover s conviction of battery. Affirmed. VAIDIK, J., and CRONE, J., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
