MEMORANDUM DECISION
Bradford, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] In 2022, Airick Green was celebrating Christmas at the Indianapolis home of his uncle David Allen when the two began to argue. The verbal altercation became physical when Green pushed Allen and ended with Green stabbing Allen in the abdomen with a five-inch knife. The State charged Green with Level 5 felony battery with a deadly weapon and alleged that he was a habitual offender. After the trial court found Green guilty as charged, it sentenced him to an aggregate term of seven years of incarceration. Green claims that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to rebut his claim that he had acted in self-defense. Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Late in the evening of December 24, 2022 (or early the next morning), Green was celebrating Christmas at Allens home when the two began to argue in the kitchen. Allen asked Green to step outside (so as not to argue in the presence of children), and Green grabbed a five-foot-long metal pipe on his way out the door. Green pushed Allen and then Allen pushed Green. While Green was still holding the pipe, Allen punched him, causing him to fall to the ground and drop the metal pipe. As Green was rising to his feet, Greens aunt stepped in between the two men. Allen did not have a weapon, reach for one, or act like he had one. Green continued to argue with Allen, pulled a knife with a five-inch blade, reached around his aunt, stabbed Allen just below the rib cage, and left.
[3] On January 9, 2023, the State charged Green with Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon and later added an allegation that he was a habitual offender. During his trial on August 18, 2023, Green testified that he had stabbed Allen in self-defense after Allen had knocked him to the ground. The trial court found Green guilty as charged and sentenced him to three years of incarceration, enhanced four years by virtue of his habitual-offender status.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Green admits to stabbing Allen but contends that the State failed to rebut his claim at trial that he had done so in self-defense. A valid claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 2000). “A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c). A claim of self-defense requires a defendant to have acted without fault in a place where he or she had a right to be and in reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm. White v. State, 699 N.E.2d 630, 635 (Ind. 1998); Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). Once the defendant asserts a claim of self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving the existence of one of the elements of the claim. Mariscal v. State, 687 N.E.2d 378, 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. denied. The State may rebut the claim either by affirmatively showing that the defendant had not acted to defend himself or by relying on the evidence elicited in the case-in-chief. Id. “Whether the State has met its burden is a question of fact[.]” Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 699–700 (Ind. 1999).
[5] At the very least, the evidence produced by the State sufficiently rebutted any claim that Green had acted without fault and in reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm. The record indicates that Green had been the initial aggressor, and “[a]n initial aggressor is not entitled to use force unless he first withdraws from the encounter and communicates his intent to do so to the other person.” Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 801 (Ind. 2002). Greens aunt testified that Green had initiated the physical altercation by pushing Allen, and there is no evidence that he had ever withdrawn or communicated his intent to withdraw. This is sufficient to sustain a finding that Green had not acted without fault.
[6] Moreover, the record also supports a finding that Green had not acted in reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm. After Allen had knocked Green to the ground (in response to Greens initial aggression), there is no evidence that Allen had tried to press his advantage by hitting or kicking him while he was down or attempting to grab the pipe or other weapon. There is no evidence of any aggression by Allen after Green had gotten up again, and Green had stabbed him anyway. The record supports a finding that Green had not had a reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily injury when he stabbed Allen.
[7] Greens self-defense was based entirely on his testimony that Allen had been the initial aggressor and that he had been afraid because Allen was larger than him. The trial court was in the best position to evaluate this evidence and chose not to credit it; we will not second-guess its determinations in this regard. Greens argument amounts to nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See, e.g., McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005) (stating that a reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses and respects the fact-finders exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence).
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Memorandum Decision by Judge Bradford
Chief Judge Altice and Judge Felix concur.
Altice, C.J., and Felix, J., concur.