154 N.E.3d 874
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- On April 28, 2019, Doroszko arranged a drug sale (about $400 of marijuana) with buyers met via Snapchat and planned the exchange in a well-lit bar parking lot.
- Doroszko armed himself with a Glock .40 and an AR-15 for “protection and intimidation.”
- Two masked men approached the SUV and fired a shot into it; a struggle then occurred in the vehicle between Doroszko and passenger Traychon Taylor over marijuana/backpack.
- Doroszko shot Taylor twice; Taylor fell from the SUV and later died. Doroszko later admitted throwing the gun into a river.
- The State charged Doroszko with murder; the trial court denied three motions for release on bail and he appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying release on bail for a murder charge where defendant asserted self-defense | State: By a preponderance the proof was evident or the presumption strong because Doroszko’s criminal conduct had an immediate causal connection to Taylor’s death | Doroszko: The State failed at the bail hearing to overcome his claim of self-defense and therefore release was required | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; evidence at the bail hearing supported finding of immediate causal connection and non-bailability under the preponderance standard |
| Proper standard at a bail hearing for disproving self-defense | State: Only a preponderance of the evidence is required at a bail hearing and it may show an immediate causal connection between the crime and confrontation | Doroszko: Relied on Gammons to argue the State must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt or that a mere connection to a crime cannot bar self-defense | Court held State need only meet preponderance standard at bail; Gammons did not change that standard and jury issues remain for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Gammons v. State, 148 N.E.3d 301 (Ind. 2020) (clarifies self-defense is barred only when there is an "immediate causal connection" between the contemporaneous crime and the confrontation)
- Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390 (Ind. 2001) (causation between criminal act and death is a fact issue for the finder of fact)
- Lopez v. State, 985 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (bail is excessive if set higher than reasonably necessary to ensure presence at trial)
- Satterfield v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (defendant may present affirmative‑defense evidence, including self‑defense, at a bail hearing)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (standard for abuse of discretion review)