Billy Brantley v. State of Indiana, 71 N.E.3d 397

On July 14, 2014 Billy Brantley shot and killed Bruce Gunn in the Gunn family living room; Brantley and Gunn were long-acquainted and lived together.
Brantley testified he drew a legally purchased gun because he believed Bruce, who rose from a recliner holding a shiny object and yelling, was about to attack Martha; the object later proved to be Bruce’s glasses.
Brantley and his sister Martha both testified Brantley was calm before, during, and after the shooting; 9‑1‑1 calls corroborated Brantley’s composed demeanor.
The State charged Brantley with voluntary manslaughter (a standalone charge) and the jury was instructed that the State had "conceded" sudden heat by charging manslaughter instead of murder.
The jury convicted Brantley of voluntary manslaughter; Brantley appealed, arguing the State failed to prove the mitigating factor of "sudden heat," a required factual showing when charging voluntary manslaughter.
The appellate majority reversed, holding the State had the burden to prove sudden heat but presented no evidence of it; double jeopardy barred retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Brantley)	Held
May the State charge voluntary manslaughter as a stand-alone offense?	Yes — statute defines voluntary manslaughter as its own crime; prosecutor discretion.	Brantley argued error in conceding sudden heat by charging only manslaughter (but did not contest standalone charging per se).	Yes; State may charge manslaughter standalone.
When charging standalone voluntary manslaughter, must the State prove "sudden heat"?	State effectively treated sudden heat as conceded by charging manslaughter only.	Brantley: State must prove sudden heat beyond a reasonable doubt.	Yes; the State is required to prove sudden heat when charging voluntary manslaughter.
Was there sufficient evidence that Brantley acted under "sudden heat"?	Prosecutor highlighted facts suggesting provocation (Bruce’s words, movement, history), and used the "concession" instruction.	Brantley: No evidence he was in an excited state; witnesses testified he was calm.	No; record contained no evidence of sudden heat and State failed its burden.
Remedy after insufficiency of evidence for manslaughter?	Implicitly, State sought affirmance or retrial.	Brantley argued reversal and bar to retrial under double jeopardy.	Reversal of conviction; retrial barred by double jeopardy due to insufficient evidence.

Winship v. United States, 397 U.S. 358 (constitutional Due Process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
Watts v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1228 (State must prove sudden heat when proving voluntary manslaughter as lesser included to murder)
Suprenant v. State, 925 N.E.2d 1280 (State bears burden to prove sudden heat when charging voluntary manslaughter)
Dearman v. State, 743 N.E.2d 757 (definition of "sudden heat" as mitigating factor excluding malice)
Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369 (standard for sufficiency review — affirm if reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Cuto v. State, 709 N.E.2d 356 (reversal for insufficient evidence bars retrial under double jeopardy)