PIGEE v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] On the morning of June 4, 2024, Jarod Pigee fired his handgun several times, striking Deangelo Easton seven times and two others once each. The State charged Pigee with Level 1 felony attempted murder, two counts of Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon, and Level 6 felony criminal recklessness. After a jury found Pigee guilty of criminal recklessness, the trial court sentenced him to one-and-one-half years of incarceration, all suspended to probation. Pigee contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self defense. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Early in morning of June 4, 2024, Pigee went to the Miami Hills apartment complex in South Bend after having been out drinking with his friends or family. Pigee began arguing with the mother of his child, and she left. Easton, angry with how Pigee had been talking to his “little sister[,]” confronted him. Tr. Vol. II p. 79. Easton passed his holstered handgun to his friend Wayne Belcher. When Pigee began walking away, Easton followed him, and Belcher followed Easton. Belcher began handing Easton's gun back to him. In that “split second[,]” Pigee “turned around and then started shooting.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 79, 80. Pigee shot Easton seven times, Belcher once, and a nearby juvenile once. Easton's gun was not fired.

[3] On June 6, 2024, the State charged Pigee with Level 1 felony attempted murder, two counts of Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon, and Level 6 felony criminal recklessness. On January 8, 2025, a jury found Pigee guilty of criminal recklessness, and the trial court sentenced him to one-and-one-half years of incarceration, all suspended to probation.

Discussion and Decision

[4] Pigee admits to shooting his three victims but argues that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self defense. A valid claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 2000). “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 to be the imminent use of unlawful force.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c). “A claim of self-defense requires a defendant to have acted without fault, been in a place where he or she had a right to be, and been in reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm.” Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). “Once the defendant asserts a claim of self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving the existence of one of the elements of the claim.” Mariscal v. State, 687 N.E.2d 378, 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. denied. The State may rebut the claim either by affirmatively showing that the defendant had not acted to defend himself or by relying on the evidence elicited in the case-in-chief. Id.

Whether the State has disproved a self-defense claim is a question for the fact finder. Pointer v. State, 585 N.E.2d 33, 36 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). In assessing whether the State introduced sufficient evidence to disprove a defendant's claim of self-defense, we look only to the evidence most favorable to the State and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Bowling v. State, 493 N.E.2d 783, 785 (Ind. 1986). We neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess the credibility of the witnesses. Id. A defendant's conviction, despite a claim of self-defense, will not be reversed unless no reasonable person could say that the State had negated the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Pointer, 585 N.E.2d at 36.

Id. (footnote omitted).

[5] At the very least, the evidence produced by the State was sufficient to rebut any claim that Pigee had acted in reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm or without fault. Easton testified that he had been unarmed when Pigee shot him, and that he had not struck him or threatened him with harm. Easton characterized the encounter as a “verbal talk” and indicated that he had been attempting to “deescalate the whole thing” and had been walking away when Pigee shot him and two others. Tr. Vol. II p. 94. This evidence is more than sufficient to sustain a finding that Pigee had not had a reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm when he recklessly fired his handgun, that the degree of force used was unreasonable under the circumstances, or both.

[6] Pigee draws our attention to evidence tending to show (or arguably tending to show) that Easton had, in fact, been armed when Pigee shot him, had been wearing a hood and ski mask, and had been aggressively pursuing Pigee. To the extent that this evidence tends to bolster Pigee's self-defense claim, the jury was in the best position to evaluate this evidence and apparently chose not to credit it; we will not second-guess its determinations in this regard. Pigee's argument amounts to nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See, e.g., McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005) (stating that a reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses and respects the fact-finder's exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence). The State produced sufficient evidence to rebut Pigee's self-defense claim.

[7] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Bradford, Judge.

May, J., and Mathias, J., concur