Anthony Gammons, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 148 N.E.3d 301

After an altercation outside a party, Anthony Gammons shot Derek Gilbert multiple times; Gilbert survived. Gammons claimed he feared for his and his son's lives and acted in self-defense. Gammons conceded he carried the handgun without a license.
Gilbert testified he was shot unexpectedly after a brief nonviolent encounter; memories were blurry.
At trial the court used a jury instruction (based on Pattern Jury Instruction 10.0300) stating a person may not use force if he "is committing a crime that is directly and immediately related to the confrontation." The trial court slightly altered Gammons’ proposed instruction.
The jury convicted Gammons of attempted murder and unlawful carrying; the Court of Appeals affirmed, deeming any instructional error harmless. Gammons sought and obtained transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held the instruction misstated the law by weakening the causal standard from Mayes v. State and concluded the error was not harmless; it reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	State's Argument	Gammons' Argument	Held
Whether the jury instruction correctly stated law on when a defendant committing a crime is precluded from asserting self-defense	The instruction was proper; a crime "directly and immediately related" to the confrontation bars self-defense	The instruction misstated Mayes by allowing mere "relatedness" instead of requiring an immediate causal connection	Instruction was erroneous: it diluted Mayes’ required "immediate causal connection" standard
Whether the instructional error was harmless	The jury could infer guilt from the number and placement of shots; any error was harmless	The error could have affected the verdict because Gammons claimed he shot only until Gilbert retreated; the instruction may have improperly foreclosed the defense	Error was not harmless; reversal and new trial required
Whether Gammons’ Second Amendment–style claim under Article 1, §32 (Indiana) was implicated	Arguably infringed by instruction	Asserted instruction impaired his right to bear arms for self-defense	Court avoided the constitutional question as the case was resolved on statutory/instructional grounds

Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390 (Ind. 2001) (self-defense barred only when there is an immediate causal connection between the crime and the confrontation)
Hood v. State, 877 N.E.2d 492 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (multiple shots are not necessarily dispositive where defendant claims continued threat and continued firing)
Coleman v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. 2011) (valid claim of self-defense legally justifies otherwise criminal conduct)
Kane v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind. 2012) (presumption that an erroneous instruction affected the verdict; reversal unless verdict would be same under correct instruction)
Batchelor v. State, 119 N.E.3d 550 (Ind. 2019) (jury instructions challenged as incorrect statements of law reviewed de novo)