952 N.E.2d 275
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Fuentes was convicted of murder and carrying a handgun without a license after a confrontation at a Clark gas station where he shot Ronald Grayson twice, killing him.
- Fuentes testified he felt threatened, withdrew, and drew a handgun; Grayson approached aggressively, prompting the first shot.
- Grayson went to his knees with arms raised after the first shot, and Fuentes fired a second time, fatally.
- Fuentes requested a self-defense instruction that framed the defense with specific causal conditions between the crime and the confrontation.
- The trial court declined the tendered instruction and instead gave instructions aligned with the statute, including a burden on the State to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- On appeal, Fuentes argued the court’s instructions were incomplete under Mayes v. State and deprived him of the self-defense defense; the court ultimately affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly instructed on self-defense | Fuentes | Fuentes | Instruction incomplete; error reversible |
| Whether instructional error was harmless | State | Fuentes | Error not harmless; potential prejudice acknowledged |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390 (Ind. 2001) (causal link required between crime and confrontation for self-defense)
- Smith v. State, 777 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (instruction error when undercutting self-defense defense)
- Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2001) (Harmless error when conviction clearly sustained by evidence)
- Schmid v. State, 804 N.E.2d 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (standards for reviewing jury instructions; overall instruction evaluation)
- Schlegel v. State, 238 Ind. 374 (1958) (self-defense rights and ultimate application in deadly force cases)