ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Anthony S. Churchward Karen M. Freeman-Wilson
Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Priscilla J. Fossum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
In The
INDIANA SUPREME COURT
STEVEN ALLEN CARROLL )
Defendant-Appellant, )
)
v. ) 02S00-0004-CR-259
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
Plaintiff-Appellee. )
________________________________________________
APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable John F. Surbeck, Jr., Judge
Cause No. 02D04-9808-CF-462
________________________________________________
On Direct Appeal
March 26, 2001
DICKSON, Justice
The defendant, Steve Carroll, was convicted of murder[1] for the July
29, 1998, killing of Bryan Ruede in Allen County. Finding sufficient
evidence to support the defendant's conviction and to rebut his claims of
self-defense and sudden heat, we affirm.
The defendant claims that the State presented insufficient evidence to
support his conviction for murder. In reviewing a claim of insufficient
evidence, we will affirm the conviction unless, considering only the
evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the judgment, and neither
reweighing the evidence nor judging the credibility of the witnesses, we
conclude that no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268,
270 (Ind. 2000); Webster v. State, 699 N.E.2d 266, 268 (Ind. 1998); Hodge
v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1246, 1247-48 (Ind. 1997).
The facts favorable to the judgment show that the defendant and three
other young men went to the victim's mobile home to acquire some marijuana.
The defendant and two of his companions got out of the car, and the
defendant went to the door to make the buy. After an exchange on the
threshold that resulted in raised voices, the defendant grabbed the victim
and pushed or fell with him inside. After a few seconds, the two men
remaining outside heard a thud. One man went up to the trailer to
investigate. He saw the victim lying on the floor with blood around his
head. The three men returned to the car where the fourth had been waiting.
The defendant then stated, "I think I killed that [expletive deleted]."
Record at 279, 315, 364, 609. The defendant also stated that he would have
killed T.J. if he had been there too. Id. Then the defendant threatened
the men in the car that he would kill them if they said anything. Id. at
315, 351, 365. The victim died from stab and slash wounds, some inflicted
with great force. The defendant admitted to police that he stabbed the
victim. The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's murder
conviction.
The defendant alternatively contends that the State failed to disprove
his claims of self-defense and sudden heat. We review a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense using the same
standard as for any claim of insufficient evidence. Milam v. State, 719
N.E.2d 1208, 1210 (Ind. 1999), Sanders v. State, 704 N.E.2d 119, 123 (Ind.
1999). A valid claim of self-defense provides a legal justification for a
person to use force against another to protect himself from what he
reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. Ind.Code §
35-41-3-2(a). He is justified in using deadly force only if he "reasonably
believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to
himself or a third person." Id. A claim of self-defense in a homicide
prosecution requires that the defendant acted without fault, was in a place
where he had a right to be, and was in reasonable fear of death or great
bodily harm. Brooks v. State, 683 N.E.2d 574, 577 (Ind. 1997). Thus,
among other things, the defendant's claim requires that he did not provoke,
instigate or participate willingly in the violence. Id. Once a defendant
claims self-defense, the State must disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, at
least one element of self-defense. Sanders v. State, 704 N.E.2d at 123;
Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995). The State may meet its
burden by either rebutting the defense directly or relying on the
sufficiency of evidence in its case-in-chief. Butler v. State, 547 N.E.2d
270, 271 (Ind. 1989).
The defendant maintains that the victim pulled a gun on him causing
him to fear for his life and forcing him to defend himself. The only
evidence the defendant offers for this contention is his own version of
what transpired. The defendant claims that after the struggle he took the
gun with him. He further states that he sold it about three days later.
However, there was no evidence that the victim owned a gun, Record at 451,
in fact, his estranged wife testified that the decedent did not possess any
firearms. Id. at 386. The defendant offered no corroborating evidence to
support his story about taking and selling the gun. None of the other
three men saw a gun in the defendant's possession. The defendant said
nothing to the other young men about a gun or fearing for his life. The
pathologist's testimony regarding the decedent's wounds is not consistent
with the defendant's version of events. The decedent suffered deep stab
wounds inflicted with great force and defensive wounds on the hand, which
he could not have received while holding a gun. Id. at 403-08, 430. The
evidence was sufficient to rebut the defendant's claim of self-defense.
The defendant also contends that the State did not negate the
existence of sudden heat. A determination of sudden heat would have
permitted the jury to return a verdict of voluntary manslaughter,[2]
instead of murder. Like self-defense, once sudden heat has been injected
into a case, the State has the burden to negate its existence. Taylor v.
State, 681 N.E.2d 1105, 1110 (Ind. 1997). Although it is the State's
burden to disprove sudden heat once it becomes an issue, its presence is a
question of fact for the jury. Shields v. State, 699 N.E.2d 636, 638 (Ind.
1998). This issue also rested on the credibility of the defendant. The
jury was instructed on voluntary manslaughter but found the defendant
guilty of murder. As we have found the evidence sufficient to support a
conviction for murder, there is no error in the jury's rejection of the
defendant's claim of sudden heat.
The defendant's conviction is affirmed.
SHEPARD, C.J., and SULLIVAN, BOEHM and RUCKER, JJ., concur.
-----------------------
[1] Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1.
[2] Ind.Code § 35-42-1-3