TEMPLE v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Joseph R. Temple appeals his conviction and twenty-year sentence for Level 2 felony voluntary manslaughter. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The evidence most favorable to Temple's conviction is as follows. Shortly after midnight on December 9, 2020, Temple's daughter Brooklyn was fighting with her boyfriend, Noe Contreras, who had a history of carrying a gun and making threats of violence. Temple was at work, and he received a text from his son Brady telling him to come home. Temple left work and drove home. Before he went into the house, he took his own gun from his truck and put it in his pocket. There were several people in the house: Temple's eighteen-year-old triplets, Brooklyn, Brady, and Brittany; Temple's seven-year-old son, Colton; Contreras; a family friend named Hayden; and a thirteen-year-old girl named Aubrie. Contreras and Aubrie were arguing, and Temple watched them for about five minutes, until Brooklyn said she needed to talk. Temple and Brooklyn went into a bedroom, and Brooklyn said she and Contreras had been arguing about her phone and that they had “put hands” on each other. Tr. Vol. IV pp. 128-29.

[3] When Temple and Brooklyn finished talking, Temple told Contreras he wanted to talk outside. Hayden would later testify that he didn't hear Temple and Contreras arguing or yelling outside but that, after a few minutes, he heard a gunshot, Contreras say, “I'm sorry, Joe,” a second shot, Contreras “whimper a little bit,” a third shot, Temple say, “You're not going to put hands on my daughter,” and then a fourth shot. Tr. Vol. III p. 250; Tr. Vol. IV pp. 6-7. Aubrie also heard Contreras apologize to Temple between shots. All four shots struck Contreras. He was shot once in the head, and stippling around his face indicated the shot was fired from intermediate to close range. Temple called 911 to report the shooting. When police arrived, they found Contreras's body approximately thirteen feet from the front door on the sidewalk. He was unarmed.

[4] Temple did two recorded interviews and went to the scene to reenact the incident. He said that while he and Contreras were talking outside, Contreras said, “If anybody in there wants to mess with me ․ I'm just gonna shoot ‘em.” Ex. 52, 51:30. Temple said he shot Contreras after Contreras started walking toward the door. When asked if he tried to stop Contreras, Temple said he “just fired.” Id. at 1:00:13. Temple said that he shot Conteras twice and then walked toward him and shot him twice more as he was on the ground or going down to the ground. When asked if he said anything to Contreras after Conteras was on the ground, Temple responded that he said “something about putting hands on my daughter.” Id. at 1:03:23. He said that when Brittany asked him why he shot Contreras, he answered, “He put hands on your sister.” Id. at 1:12:00.

[5] The State charged Temple with murder and Level 2 felony voluntary manslaughter. At the jury trial, Temple testified and added details he hadn't given to police. He said that while he and Contreras were talking outside, Contreras looked through the window of the house, said “I'm going to shoot them. I'm going to shoot them all,” and “started towards the door.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 136. Asked what he did in response, Temple answered, “Told him to stop. He kept going and I said stop. I told him to stop three times, and then he kept going and he was going. He went to reach for his gun and then I fired.” Id.

[6] The jury found Temple not guilty of murder but guilty of voluntary manslaughter. In sentencing Temple, the trial court found two aggravating circumstances: the fourth gunshot (the shot to Contreras's head) and the presence of minors during the incident. The court also found two mitigating circumstances: Temple has no criminal history and was a “productive, law-abiding citizen” before this incident. Appellant's App. Vol. III p. 48. Finding that the aggravators “slightly” outweigh the mitigators, id., the court sentenced Temple to twenty years in the Department of Correction. The court explained:

[O]n the night that this happened, you made the worst decision of all, the wors[t] decision I can imagine making. You were supposed to be the (quote) adult in the room. Your son called you and said dad, get home, we need you. Your kids needed you. They needed you to do the right thing. And you came home and what did you do? You did talk to some of the kids inside, some of the young adults inside, but then you took [Contreras] outside and you held a gun on him as he was standing there defenseless. Now, perhaps you didn't know whether he had a gun in his pocket or tucked in his pants or not, but you knew that when you were, when you pulled your gun out that he didn't have one right then. And if he had made one move to get it, we know what would happen. Even if there was a gun there, a gun that you had, the one that you conveniently just bought that day, and you shot him four times. Each one, the doctor testified, was a fatal shot, each one. If you could have killed him four times you would have. He had no weapon pointed at you, as they said. So when your kids called you home to do the right thing, you not only took their friend away from them and their child away from them, but you potentially took yourself away from your family for years. You could have said as you're holding the gun on a defenseless person, get the hell out of my yard, get in your car and drive away. You could have shot in the air to scare him. You could have shot him in the arm or the leg. But you didn't. You inflicted four fatal wounds on him. And the key factor to me, which was alluded to by the prosecuting attorney and what I think is ․ an aggravating factor, is that the final shot was point blank in the head execution style as he lay dying or already dead. Way after any threat or sudden heat had faded away. At that point I respect the jury's decision that this was sudden heat involved. But by that fourth shot that was very close to [Contreras's] head, there was no more sudden heat. It was clear that he was no threat to you or your daughter or to anyone else.

Tr. Vol. V pp. 38-39.

[7] Temple now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. The evidence is sufficient to support Temple's conviction

[8] Temple contends the State didn't present sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. When a self-defense claim is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State has the burden of negating the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800-01 (Ind. 2002). “The State may meet this burden by rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief.” Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind. 1999). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the State's evidence in this regard, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 801. We will reverse “only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. In other words, a trier of fact's decision on a self-defense claim is generally entitled to considerable deference on appeal. Taylor v. State, 710 N.E.2d 921, 924 (Ind. 1999).

[9] Temple's argument fails because it is a request for us to reweigh the evidence. He relies largely on his own trial testimony. In particular, he cites his testimony that Contreras said “I'm going to shoot them all” and started walking toward the door, that he told Contreras to stop three times, and that he shot only after Contreras refused to stop. But the jury also heard the statements Temple made to police shortly after the shooting—none of which Temple addresses in his brief—including that he didn't tell Contreras to stop before shooting him and that he shot Contreras because he had gotten physical with Brooklyn. It was up to the jury to decide whether Temple was telling the truth in his statements after the shooting or in his trial testimony. Our role is limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's decision, and there clearly is. We therefore affirm Temple's conviction.¹

II. Temple's sentence is not inappropriate

[10] Temple asks us to reduce his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that an appellate court “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” The court's role under Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers,” and “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants must persuade us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[11] The sentencing range for a Level 2 felony is ten to thirty years, with an advisory sentence of seventeen-and-a-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. The trial court imposed an above-advisory sentence of twenty years.

[12] Temple's inappropriateness argument, like his sufficiency argument, is largely based on his own testimony. He argues that he “took action to protect the lives of individuals located in his home.” Appellant's Br. p. 22. But as discussed above, that is the exact argument the jury rejected when it found Temple guilty of voluntary manslaughter. We won't second guess the jury's determination. Temple also emphasizes that he has no criminal history. While commendable, we agree with the trial court that this fact is outweighed by two aggravating factors: there were children present at the time of the shooting, including Temple's own seven-year-old son, and the final shot was “point blank in the head execution style” as Contreras was already on the ground dying. Given those facts, we are not persuaded that Temple's sentence of twenty years—two-and-a-half years above the advisory but ten years below the maximum—is an outlier in need of revision.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   After the State rested its case, Temple moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State “never had any witness point to Joe Temple and say that this was Joe Temple.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 98. The trial court denied the motion, and Temple argues that this was error. But after the court denied the motion, Temple chose to present his own evidence—namely, his own testimony in which he admitted being the shooter. A defendant who presents evidence after the denial of a motion for directed verdict made at the end of the State's case waives appellate review of the denial of that motion. Cox v. State, 19 N.E.3d 287, 290-91 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Scheele, J., concur.