Rebecca Lawson v. State of Indiana

Lawson and Patrick Brown (“Brown”) had an on and off again relationship for

several years, beginning in 2012. During this time, Brown also dated Cecelia

Land (“Land”). Brown and Land had broken up sometime in 2015, but were

back together again by February 2016.

[4] On February 12, 2016, Lawson sent Brown a text message asking if he wanted

her to bring dinner over, and Brown responded that he was going to be working

late. State’s Ex. 89 at 4. Lawson texted Brown back a little later, and when he

responded in an angry manner, she decided to drive over to Brown’s house.

Lawson drove to Brown’s house and saw both Brown’s car and Land’s car in

the driveway. Lawson pulled into the driveway and rolled down her window.

Brown came outside and told her, “you should just go.” Tr. Vol. III at 99. Land



1 See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1. 2 See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1; Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1(a).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-445 | November 20, 2017 Page 3 of 9



was looking out the front door of the house and said, “what’s going on.” Id.

Lawson had brought collars for Brown’s dogs, and she handed those to him and

started to drive away. At that time, Land had begun walking toward Lawson’s

car. Lawson observed Land throw her arms up in the air, and saw Brown

restrain Land by grabbing her under the arms and pushing her back.

[5] Lawson then drove to a nearby Walgreen’s, and while there, she texted Brown

and told him that Land needed to leave. State’s Ex. 89 at 5. When Brown did

not answer her, Lawson texted him and informed him that she was coming

back to his house to retrieve a gun that belonged to her that she had loaned to

Brown. Id. at 6. The gun was important to her because it was a gift from her

father, who was very ill. Brown still did not respond, so Lawson texted him

that she was returning to his house to get her gun and other belongings because

he had made his choice of who he wanted to be with. Tr. Vol. III at 101; State’s

Ex. 89 at 6.

[6] When Lawson returned to Brown’s house, she parked her car in the driveway,

and Brown came out immediately with Land following him. Lawson always

kept a handgun with her, either in her purse or in a holster in her car. When

she parked the car and saw Land coming out of the house, Lawson took the

gun from her purse and put it in her lap. Lawson felt that she needed the gun

because Land had previously threatened to “kick [her] ass.” Tr. Vol. III at 115.

At trial, Land admitted to having threatened to “kick [Lawson’s] ass” during

one phone call. Tr. Vol. II at 27.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-445 | November 20, 2017 Page 4 of 9



[7] As Land approached Lawson’s car, Lawson yelled, “I have a gun and a gun

permit,” and Land responded, “I don’t give a shit.” Id. at 36. Brown was

standing next to the driver’s side window, which was open partially. Brown

told Lawson to leave, and she responded that he needed to bring her gun. Land

cursed at both Brown and Lawson and then began to turn and walk away.

Lawson told Brown, “just go get my gun and I’ll leave,” but Brown saw the gun

in Lawson’s lap, and he reached into the car and attempted to grab it. State’s

Ex. 93 at 3, 11-12. Lawson told him not to grab her gun, and she grabbed it

herself and pulled it back. Brown said, “I’ll rip that mother fucker out of your

hand,” and Lawson yelled again for Brown to get her gun. Id. at 12. Brown

then reached into the car again, grabbed Lawson’s face and squeezed “really

hard” while telling her to, “shut the fuck up!” Id. During this time, Land was

coming closer to Lawson’s car.

[8] Brown had never been physically violent with Lawson before, and when he

reached in and began squeezing her face, she was terrified. Tr. Vol. III at 102.

Lawson had the gun in her hand, and she fired in Brown’s direction, striking

him in the chest. Land was approaching with something in her hand, so

Lawson also fired in her direction, striking her twice in the face. The object in

Land’s hand was later determined to be a cellphone.

[9] After realizing what had happened, Lawson dropped the gun in her seat and

called 911. She told the dispatcher that she had shot two people. When the

police arrived at the scene, Officer John Montgomery (“Officer Montgomery”)

of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department was one of the first to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-445 | November 20, 2017 Page 5 of 9



respond, and when he asked who shot who, Lawson told him, “I shot them.”

Tr. Vol. II at 100. Officer Montgomery observed several cell phones, articles of

clothing, and part of a thumb on the ground. He also located a gun on the front

seat of Lawson’s car. Lawson was taken into custody. Brown later died of the

gunshot wound to his chest. As a result of the gunshots wounds she sustained,

Land lost her right eye, part of her thumb, and her sinus cavity and had to have

part of her jaw reconstructed.

[10] On February 17, 2016, the State charged Lawson with murder and attempted

murder. A jury trial was held, at which Lawson raised a claim of self-defense.

This issue of self-defense was discussed by the trial court, defense counsel, and

the State numerous times during the trial. The trial court indicated that it

intended to give a jury instruction on self-defense. Tr. Vol. III at 60-66, 136-39.

The State conceded that giving a self-defense instruction to the jury was proper.

Id. at 136-37. During discussion on final jury instructions, defense counsel

tendered a corollary final instruction regarding the subjective nature of a claim

of self-defense. The trial court refused to give the tendered instruction, and in

doing so, stated, “This instruction actually is already addressed in the self

defense instruction that I have given, and it is addressed in the sense that the

subjective nature is already addressed.” Id. at 138. Despite this discussion

about, and agreement to give, a self-defense instruction to the jury, the trial

court did not give a self-defense instruction to the jury during final instructions.

Neither party objected to the omission of the instruction. At the conclusion of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-445 | November 20, 2017 Page 6 of 9



the trial, Lawson was found guilty of murder and attempted murder and was

sentenced to an aggregate term of eighty-five years. Lawson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Generally, the manner of instructing the jury is a matter within the sound

discretion of the trial court, which we review for an abuse of that discretion.

Pattison v. State, 54 N.E.3d 361, 365 (Ind. 2016). “Where, as here, the

defendant failed to preserve an alleged instructional defect, the objection is

waived, and reversal is warranted only in instances of fundamental error.” Id.

(citing Wright v. State, 730 N.E.2d 713, 716 (Ind. 2000)). Fundamental error

occurs where there is a substantial blatant violation of basic principles and

where, if not corrected, it would deny a defendant fundamental due process. Id.

This exception to the general rule requiring a contemporaneous objection is

narrow, providing relief only in egregious circumstances that made a fair trial

impossible. Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 678 (Ind. 2013). “A finding of

fundamental error essentially means that the trial judge erred by not acting

when he or she should have.” Whiting v. State, 969 N.E.2d 24, 34 (Ind. 2012).

[12] Lawson argues that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury as to

her claim of self-defense. She contends that the evidence presented at trial

supported giving the instruction and that it is clear that the trial court intended

to instruct the jury on self-defense. Lawson further asserts that it was reversible

error to not give a self-defense instruction because all of the parties agreed that

the jury should be instructed as to self-defense, and the elements of self-defense

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-445 | November 20, 2017 Page 7 of 9



were discussed in closing arguments, and in the absence of an instruction, the

jury was “left to cobble together the elements of self-defense as best it could.”

Appellant’s Br. at 20. Lawson maintains that this was not sufficient, and she was

denied a fair trial.

[13] A criminal defendant is entitled to have a jury instruction on any theory or

defense which has some foundation in the evidence. Hernandez v. State, 45

N.E.3d 373, 376 (Ind. 2015). “‘We apply this rule even if the evidence is weak

and inconsistent so long as the evidence presented at trial has some probative

value to support it.’” Id. (quoting Howard v. State, 755 N.E.2d 242, 247 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2001)). However, even if the failure to give a tendered jury instruction

was error, this court must assess whether the defendant was prejudiced by the

trial court’s failure to give the instruction. Id. (citing Burton v. State, 978 N.E.2d

520, 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)).

[14] A valid claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.

Richardson v. State, 79 N.E.3d 958, 964 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. “A

person is justified in using reasonable force against another 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. A claim of self

defense requires a defendant to have acted without fault, been in a place where

he or she had a right to be, and been in reasonable fear or apprehension of

bodily harm. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-445 | November 20, 2017 Page 8 of 9



[15] Here, the evidence presented at trial showed that Lawson had been involved in

a relationship with Brown and that she went to his home to retrieve a handgun

that she had loaned him. Although Brown told Lawson to leave, she responded

that she would leave if he brought her the gun that she had loaned him. At that

time, Brown noticed a handgun sitting in Lawson’s lap and reached into the car

and attempted to take the gun away from her. Lawson told him not to grab her

gun and grasped it herself and pulled it back from Brown’s reach. Brown then

reached into the car again, gripped Lawson’s face and squeezed “really hard”

while telling her to, “shut the fuck up!” State’s Ex. 93 at 12. During this time,

Land was coming closer to Lawson’s car. Because Brown had never been

physically violent with Lawson before, when he reached in and began

squeezing her face, she was terrified, and she fired in Brown’s direction. At the

same time, Land was approaching with something in her hand, so Lawson also

fired in her direction.

[16] Based on this evidence, the trial court concluded that there was sufficient

evidence to give an instruction on self-defense and indicated that it intended to

give the jury the pattern jury instruction on self-defense. Tr. Vol. III at 60-66,

136-39. The State conceded that giving a self-defense instruction to the jury

was proper. Id. at 136-37. We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented

at trial to support the giving of a self-defense instruction.

[17] As stated above, it is clear that the trial court intended to instruct the jury as to

self-defense. However, the instruction was inexplicably not given to the jury

during final instructions. During the trial, evidence was presented to support

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-445 | November 20, 2017 Page 9 of 9



Lawson’s claim of self-defense and the parties argued the issue during closing

arguments. However, without an instruction to set out the elements of the

defense of self-defense, the jury was not made aware of the exact elements that

would need to be proven and were left to either assume that they were not

allowed to consider a claim of self-defense or to guess how to apply the facts

presented and the arguments made to the law. Therefore, this failure to instruct

the jury on self-defense denied Lawson fundamental due process and made a

fair trial impossible. Halliburton, 1 N.E.3d at 678.

Because the trial court failed to act when it should have, we find that fundamental error occurred. Whiting, 969 N.E.2d at 34. Based upon the error in failing to instruct the jury on Lawson’s claim of self-defense, we reverse and remand to the trial court for a new trial.



Reversed and remanded.