No one should have to choose between a felony or a funeral. This is the sentiment put forth by the Indiana Supreme Court on March 12, 2025 in its decision in Turner v. State (24SCR-147). In this, the Supreme Court reinforces the concept of Indiana’s self-defense laws.
The self defense statute in Indiana is defined by I.C. 35-41-3-2. The statute provides that:
A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes (emphasis added) to be the imminent threat of unlawful force. However, a person:
- Is justified in using deadly force; and
- Does not have a duty to retreat;
If the person reasonably believes (emphasis added) that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.
I.C. 35-41-3-2(c).
The language of the self defense statute establishes both a subjective and objective standard to evaluate the reasonableness of a defendant’s belief that force was necessary to protect against the imminent use of unlawful force. Littler v. State, 871 N.E.2d 276, 279 (Ind. 2007). Subjectively, the defendant must actually believe that force is necessary, and objectively, the belief must be one that a reasonable person would form given the circumstances. Id. In layman’s terms, not only must your own belief be reasonable, but other individuals would find it reasonable as well.
The Supreme Court in Turner analyzes if hindsight can be applied to the defendant’s belief that force was necessary, even though that necessity wasn’t fully apparent in the moment. The facts of Turner are as follows:
The defendant (Turner) grew up in a high crime area on the east side of Indianapolis. He graduated from Warren Central High School, participated in band, and was highly thought of by his peers and family members. After graduating high school, Turner attended IUPUI and was pursuing a double major in biology and medical humanities. In addition to his studies, Turner worked two part time jobs.
On the night in question, Turner was studying for an organic chemistry exam at a classmate’s home. The classmate’s ex-boyfriend (Briscoe) began texting and calling the classmate, and became angry that Turner was at classmate’s home. Over the phone, Briscoe made an audible threat to Turner, stating that Briscoe was about to “pull up” on Turner. Turner, having grown up in a high crime area and having himself witnessed several people get shot, understood this to mean that Briscoe was coming to classmate’s residence to shoot Turner. Turner also became aware that Briscoe carried a handgun in his vehicle. With this information, Turner walked to his car to retrieve his handgun. On his walk back to classmate’s residence, Turner saw an unknown vehicle in the distance, with headlights on and darkly tinted windows, speed towards him. Although Turner didn’t see the driver of the vehicle, Turner believed that this car was driven by Briscoe and that Briscoe was going to shoot Turner. Turner had no time to run and had nowhere to hide, so he fired at the vehicle as it sped towards him.
Sure enough, Briscoe was the driver of the vehicle, and was shot once in each arm. Briscoe drove the vehicle to a nearby garage, where paramedics arrived and rendered aid to him. There was an unholstered handgun in the passenger seat of Briscoe’s vehicle with blood on it, indicating that Briscoe was likely holding the gun at the time he was shot.
Turner was later charged with Battery by Means of a Deadly Weapon, a level 5 felony. Turner waived his right to a jury trial and the case was tried in front of a judge. At the conclusion of trial, the judge reluctantly entered a conviction and found Turner guilty as charged. The judge made it clear that it was an extremely difficult decision, stating that Turner was forced to decide between a “felony and a funeral.” The judge reasoned that he had to find Turner guilty under the law, because Turner shot at the vehicle not knowing for sure that Briscoe was in the vehicle, and that even if Briscoe was in the vehicle, Turner did not know in the moment that Briscoe constituted an imminent threat. Put another way, the judge found that without the benefit of hindsight, it was objectively unreasonable for Turner to fire at the vehicle.
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. The Supreme Court’s logic was that it was necessary for Turner to fire at Briscoe to avoid being shot. The Supreme Court clarified that the Indiana self-defense statute justifies using force when the defendant’s actions are objectively reasonable in the circumstances. The Supreme Court further reasoned that individuals cannot be deprived of the benefit of hindsight when it reveals their conduct was necessary in self-defense, even though the necessity wasn’t fully apparent in the moment. In short, Turner was correct that Briscoe was indeed an imminent threat, and with no other viable option in the moment, Turner was justified in protecting himself from that threat. Turner, and no person in Indiana, should ever be forced to choose between a felony or a funeral.
Are you or a loved one facing charges in which self defense is at issue? Contact the experienced attorneys at Banks and Brower anytime at 317-870-0019 or at info@banksbrower.com.
