Sabrina L. Dunn v. State of Indiana, 230 N.E.3d 910

Sabrina Dunn was charged and convicted of murdering her ex-husband, Bill Dunn, following years of documented abuse, harassment, and repeated violations of protective orders by Bill, with both parties making numerous 911 calls over a period of years.
On the night of the killing, Bill entered Sabrina’s house uninvited at night after making verbal threats and carrying knives, following a long pattern of similar conduct.
Dunn testified that she shot Bill believing he posed a lethal threat as he entered her home holding a "big knife."
At trial, Sabrina's defense focused solely on defense of dwelling ("castle doctrine"), asserting her use of deadly force was justified to prevent unlawful entry and threat.
The trial court, over defense objection, instructed the jury on both self-defense and defense of dwelling, using ambiguous "and/or" language regarding the State’s burden to disprove these defenses beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury convicted Dunn of murder. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to specifically review the instructional error claim regarding "and/or."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ambiguity of "and/or" in jury instructions	State argued the instructions as a whole were not misleading; burden language adequate.	Dunn argued "and/or" in instructions confused the jury on the State’s burden regarding defenses.	The use of "and/or" was fundamentally ambiguous and misleading, constituting fundamental error.
Preservation of instructional error	Claimed Dunn waived the specific "and/or" objection by not raising it at trial.	Dunn responded that even if not preserved, error was fundamental and reviewable.	Waiver occurred, but review permitted due to fundamental error exception.
Whether instructional ambiguity denied a fair trial	State asserted the instructions were sufficiently clear in totality; closing arguments clarified.	Dunn countered the ambiguity impaired her defense and left a real risk of wrongful conviction.	The error impaired Dunn’s sole defense, risked an unjust conviction, and made the trial fundamentally unfair.
Remedy for fundamental instructional error	State sought affirmance or at most resentencing.	Dunn sought vacatur of her conviction.	Murder conviction vacated; remanded for new proceedings.

Miller v. State, 188 N.E.3d 871 (Ind. 2022) (articulating standards for instructional error and waiver)
Young v. State, 30 N.E.3d 719 (Ind. 2015) (fundamental error review considers unusual operative and procedural facts)
Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014) (standards for reviewing instructional error and prejudice)
Birdsong v. State, 685 N.E.2d 42 (Ind. 1997) (State bears burden to disprove self-defense or defense of property beyond a reasonable doubt)
LaPorte Community School Corp. v. Rosales, 963 N.E.2d 520 (Ind. 2012) (danger of ambiguous instructions misleading juries)
Richeson v. State, 704 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. 1998) (serious consequences of instructional error in major felony trials)