MUEX v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] The State charged Eddie Muex with murder after he stabbed Terryus Thomas five times in a liquor store parking lot, killing him. A security video of the stabbing was admitted into evidence at Muex's bench trial, and the trial court ultimately found Muex guilty of the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. Muex now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing the State to play the stabbing portion of the security video in slow motion. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to negate his claim of self-defense. We affirm.

Facts

[2] Muex and Thomas had a hostile relationship for unexplained reasons. One day in June 2022, they encountered each other in a liquor store parking lot and immediately began to argue. Roughly 81/212 minutes later, Muex stabbed Thomas a total of five times in the left chest, torso, and back. Thomas soon died from his wounds at a local hospital.

[3] The liquor store's exterior security camera captured video of the entire altercation. While arguing, Muex and Thomas mostly stayed several feet apart. Muex walked away from Thomas on multiple occasions. But each time, he either returned to the argument or was pursued by Thomas. Thomas repeatedly took a stance as though he was preparing to fight Muex, but he never threw a punch or otherwise attempted physical contact.

[4] Toward the end of the encounter, Muex swung a plastic shopping bag containing socks at Thomas's head. When doing so, a sheathed “hiking” knife fell from Muex's pocket. Exhs. Vol. I, pp. 104-05. Muex retrieved the knife while Thomas walked away. But Thomas soon returned and resumed arguing with Muex. A second or two later, Muex charged Thomas with the knife from several feet away. Muex thrust the knife at Thomas's left side as the two grappled each other and fell to the ground.

[5] Muex and Thomas scuffled on the ground for approximately 40 seconds before the alteration ended. Muex then stood up and left the parking lot. Thomas also stood up, and after pausing—hunched over with his hands on his knees—he slowly walked into the liquor store. There, an interior security camera recorded more of the incident's aftermath. A bloody Thomas entered the store and placed a closed folding knife on the checkout counter. He then took a knee before collapsing to the floor. A second folding knife was later discovered in Thomas's clothing.

[6] The liquor store clerk called 911, and both police and paramedics were dispatched to the scene. Meanwhile, Muex contacted his attorney and arranged to make a voluntary statement to police. During the ensuing police interview, Muex admitted that he stabbed Thomas multiple times. Muex also relayed that, after leaving the liquor store parking lot, he discarded his knife in a nearby alley. Police searched for the knife but never found it.

[7] Muex also told police that Thomas had antagonized him during an encounter the night before. Though Muex was able to de-escalate that situation, Thomas purportedly threatened: “I'm going to stab you. As soon as I catch you in the dark.” Id. at 103. The next day, when Muex encountered Thomas in the liquor store parking lot, Thomas again antagonized Muex. According to Muex, he tried to de-escalate that situation as well. But eventually, Thomas pulled a knife and “sliced” Muex, so Muex pulled a knife and “sliced his a** back.” Id. at 104. “[Muex's] whole reaction was to slice [Thomas].” Id. at 109.

[8] After reviewing the liquor store security videos, the State charged Muex with murder. The case proceeded to a bench trial, during which the State offered the videos into evidence. Without objection, the State played in real time the video of Muex and Thomas's altercation. The State then offered to replay the stabbing portion of the video in slow motion. Muex's defense counsel objected, arguing: “[T]his is all reasonable reaction in real time, not in slow motion.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 127. But the trial court overruled the objection, stating:

I don't believe the response time that -- of [Muex] is the issue. I think it's the clarification on who may be the initial aggressor. So I am going to allow it to be slowed down for clarity of the video, not for actual state of mind of [Muex] or [Thomas].

Id.

[9] During closing argument, Muex's defense counsel argued that Muex stabbed Thomas in self-defense. The trial court rejected this defense but concluded that Muex acted under sudden heat. The court therefore found Muex guilty of the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter, a Level 2 felony. In announcing its verdict, the court noted:

There were times the State asked me to look at the video [in] slomo, and there were times the Defense asked me to look at it in real time. And I did both, because I viewed the videos in slow motion to verify certain facts, and I also viewed it in a (sic) real time to gauge the state of mind of [Muex] because[,] as the Defense said, this did happen in real time. It must be judged in that respect when it comes to defences (sic).

Id. at 176.

[10] The trial court ultimately entered judgment of conviction against Muex for voluntary manslaughter and sentenced him to 18 years in the Indiana Department of Correction. Muex appeals only his conviction.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Muex raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erred by allowing the State to replay the stabbing portion of the security video in slow motion. Second, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. Neither argument prevails.

I. The Trial Court Did Not Err by Allowing the Slow-Motion Replay

[12] We review a trial court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 128 (Ind. 2005). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or when the court misinterprets the law. Carpenter v. State, 786 N.E.2d 696, 703 (Ind. 2003).

[13] Muex claims the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to replay the stabbing portion of the security video in slow motion because, under Indiana Evidence Rule 403, the probative value of doing so was substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. According to Muex, playing the video in slow motion risked distorting the trial court's perception of the real-time events in favor of a finding that Muex acted with intent to kill.

[14] We find that Muex waived his Rule 403 claim by failing to raise it at trial when the State offered to replay the stabbing portion of the security video in slow motion. “In order to preserve a claim of trial court error in the admission or exclusion of evidence, it is necessary at trial to state the objection together with the specific ground or grounds therefor at the time the evidence is first offered.” K.C. v. State, 84 N.E.3d 646, 649 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Mullins v. State, 646 N.E.2d 40, 44 (Ind. 1995)). “Failure to state the specific basis for objection waives the issue on appeal.” Id.

[15] Though Muex's defense counsel objected to the State's offer to replay the stabbing portion of the security video in slow motion, defense counsel neither cited Rule 403 nor articulated that the probative value of the slow-motion replay was substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. Defense counsel stated only: “[T]his is all reasonable reaction in real time, not in slow motion.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 127. Thus, Muex failed to state the “specific basis for objection” he now raises on appeal. K.C., 84 N.E.3d at 649.

[16] Waiver notwithstanding, we find that replaying the stabbing portion of the security video in slow-motion was highly probative as to who was the initial aggressor in the stabbing incident. See generally Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(g)(3) (providing that self-defense is not available to a defendant who was the “initial aggressor” except in certain circumstances). In real time, the stabbing seemingly began in the blink of an eye. But in slow motion, the incident can easily be broken down. One second, Thomas resumed arguing with Muex from several feet away. The next second, Muex charged Thomas with the knife. And the second after that, Muex began thrusting the knife at Thomas's left side.

[17] The alleged risk of prejudice was also minimal. While we acknowledge Muex's concern about distorting the trial court's perception of the real-time events, the trial court took a measured approach to the slow-motion video in this case. The court expressly considered it for the limited purpose of determining who was the initial aggressor in the stabbing. When evaluating Muex's intent in stabbing Thomas, the court expressly considered the video as played in real time. This balanced consideration of the evidence fell well within the court's discretion.

II. The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Rebut Muex's Self-Defense Claim

[18] A valid claim of self-defense provides “legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.” Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002). “In order to prevail on such a claim, the defendant must show that he: (1) was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence; and (3) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.” Id. “When a claim of self-defense is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State has the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements.” King v. State, 61 N.E.3d 1275, 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “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.” Id.

[19] We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense the same as we do for any claim of insufficient evidence. Ervin v. State, 114 N.E.3d 888, 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). That is, “[w]e neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses,” and “[w]e consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the trial court's decision.” Id. “If a defendant is convicted despite his claim of self-defense, [we] will reverse only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt.” Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800-01.

[20] The State claims it sufficiently rebutted Muex's self-defense claim with evidence that he was the initial aggressor in the stabbing incident. We agree. The security video of Muex and Thomas's altercation showed them verbally arguing for 81/212 minutes without physical violence. Eventually, Muex swung a bag of socks at Thomas's head. But they soon returned to arguing, seemingly just like before. Muex then charged Thomas with the knife from several feet away. And contrary to Muex's statement during his police interview, Thomas did not appear to “slice” Muex with a knife first. Exhs. Vol. I, p. 104.

[21] Muex emphasizes that Thomas verbally antagonized him, repeatedly took a fighting stance during their argument, and was armed with two folding knives. But based on the security video, a reasonable person could find that Muex was the initial aggressor beyond a reasonable doubt. See Berry v. State, 268 Ind. 432, 433, 376 N.E.2d 808, 809 (1978) (finding self-defense sufficiently negated where defendant shot person who verbally instigated altercation). Muex's claim to the contrary is simply a request to reweigh the evidence, which this Court does not do. Ervin, 114 N.E.3d at 895.

[22] Affirmed.

Weissmann, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.