Duane Herron v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 71A04-1704-CR-743

In January 2015, Duane Herron and his then-girlfriend J.G. had a domestic altercation in which J.G. testified Herron struck her repeatedly, dragged her to the floor, straddled her chest, and continued to hit her; she sustained visible bruising, bleeding, and later reported ongoing pain, vertigo, and hearing issues.
Police photographed J.G.’s injuries at her workplace and at home; her employer and an officer corroborated her distraught appearance and statements that Herron caused the injuries.
Herron admitted causing the main eye injury and testified he acted in self‑defense after J.G. attacked him with a knife while high on drugs.
The State charged Herron with Level 6 felony battery (moderate bodily injury) and misdemeanor interference with reporting; a jury convicted him of the felony and acquitted him of the misdemeanor. The court imposed a two‑year sentence, suspended to probation.
Prior to trial Herron moved for Judge Hurley’s recusal, citing adverse rulings in a separate case (including an obstruction conviction reversed on appeal for statutory misinterpretation), alleged courtroom misconduct by security, denial of credit time, and other grievances; the motion was denied and Herron proceeded pro se with standby counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support Level 6 battery (moderate injury)	State: J.G.’s testimony, police and employer observations, and photos show Herron knowingly struck J.G. causing substantial pain and injury.	Herron: Presented alternate version—he acted in self‑defense after J.G. attacked with a knife; argues jury should have credited his account.	Affirmed. Viewing evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of verdict, a reasonable factfinder could convict; uncorroborated victim testimony may suffice.
Motion to recuse trial judge	State: Judge properly considered allegations, consulted judicial commission, and no objective basis for doubt about impartiality.	Herron: Prior adverse rulings and reversal in another case, denial of credits, alleged taser threat, and other conduct created appearance of bias requiring recusal.	Denied. No actual bias shown; adverse prior rulings and appellate reversal do not by themselves require recusal; other allegations speculative or unsupported.

Burgh v. State, 79 N.E.3d 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to conviction)
Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. 2012) (a conviction may rest on uncorroborated testimony of a single witness)
Flowers v. State, 738 N.E.2d 1051 (Ind. 2000) (prior presiding over a conviction later reversed does not automatically disqualify a judge from later proceedings)
Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. 2002) (defendant must show actual personal bias; mere adverse rulings insufficient)
Voss v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1211 (Ind. 2006) (adverse rulings generally not grounds for finding personal bias)
Palacios v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (appellate court will not reweigh credibility of witnesses)
Boyd v. State, 889 N.E.2d 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (conviction need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence)