Michael Shirley, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A04-1611-CR-2514

Background

On August 1, 2015, Michael Shirley and his uncle Roderick Woodford were involved in a physical altercation in the family home; other relatives saw them "tussling." After being separated, gunshots were heard and Roderick was later found with a fatal abdominal gunshot wound. A knife was found under Roderick’s body.
Shirley admitted he shot Roderick but claimed self-defense, testifying Roderick choked and tried to stab him and he fired until the threat stopped.
Witnesses (Bernita and James) testified the fight had ended and the men were separated across the room when shots were fired; Shirley was not next to Roderick after the shooting.
Police recovered the murder weapon concealed inside an athletic shoe buried under clothing in Shirley’s closet; Shirley left the house after the shooting and stayed at a friend’s house and then a motel before being arrested.
A jury convicted Shirley of murder; the trial court sentenced him to 54 years. Shirley appealed, arguing (1) the State failed to rebut his self-defense claim and (2) a jury instruction combined with prosecutorial comments produced fundamental error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency to rebut self-defense	State: evidence (witness testimony, concealment, flight, multiple shots) negated self-defense	Shirley: he was defending against stabbing and choking; testimony supports self-defense	Held: State presented sufficient evidence to rebut self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt
Fundamental error from instruction + prosecutor comments	State: instruction tracked statute; prosecutor’s rebuttal responded to defense argument	Shirley: instruction was incomplete (didn't define "enters into combat") and prosecutor misstated law by suggesting defendant had to remain passive to claim self-defense	Held: No fundamental error — instruction comported with statute and evidence; prosecutorial remarks were permissible rebuttal and jurors were instructed that statements are not evidence

Key Cases Cited

Burnside v. State, 858 N.E.2d 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (self-defense as legal justification)
Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 1999) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Cole v. State, 28 N.E.3d 1126 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (State may rebut self-defense by case-in-chief)
Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. 2002) (elements of self-defense and reversal standard)
Randolph v. State, 755 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. 2001) (multiple shots undermining self-defense claim)
McCullough v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (jury not required to credit defendant’s testimony)
Myers v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1069 (Ind. 2015) (flight and avoidance as circumstantial evidence of guilt)
Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919 (Ind. 1999) (permissibility of instructing consistent with statute)
Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2006) (prosecutor may respond to defense inferences during rebuttal)
Lehman v. State, 926 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (narrow scope of fundamental error doctrine)
Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (fundamental error applies only in egregious circumstances)
Clay v. State, 766 N.E.2d 33 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (failure to object to instruction waives appeal)
Bald v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1170 (Ind. 2002) (failure to contemporaneously object to prosecutorial statements waives issue)
Isom v. State, 31 N.E.3d 469 (Ind. 2015) (standards for reviewing alleged prosecutorial misconduct and fundamental error)
Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. 2010) (review of jury instruction decisions)
Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390 (Ind. 2001) (factors for evaluating jury instruction correctness)