Alexander T. Geesy, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Alexander T. Geesy appeals his conviction of murder, asserting the evidence was insufficient to rebut his claim of self-defense. Finding the evidence sufficient to sustain his conviction, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In July 2022, Geesy, his brother Ryan, his girlfriend Brandi, Brandi's children, and Brandi's mother went to visit Sharp Cemetery in Daleville. The group was going to the cemetery as an adventure for one of the children's birthdays as the cemetery is rumored to be haunted. They took two cars, one red and one white. Brandi's mother drove the white car, and Geesy drove the red car. As they neared the cemetery, the red car almost collided with a car driven by Stephanie Coomer, who lived just down the road from the cemetery. The occupants of the red car shouted at Stephanie and flipped her off and then continued on to the cemetery. When Stephanie pulled up her driveway, she saw her husband, Randall, who was preparing to leave. He asked what had happened out on the road, and she told him “it was just some kids flying down the road” and surmised they were headed to the cemetery. Tr. Vol. II, p. 115.

[3] When Randall left home, he went to the cemetery. The cars had backed into the cemetery lane so that they were facing out toward the road, with the white car in front of the red car and closest to the road. Randall approached the white car and yelled at Brandi's mother. Ryan had exited the red car, and he approached Randall. The two men then engaged in a physical altercation in front of the white car. Meanwhile, Geesy exited the red car and drew his handgun. Geesy yelled at Randall several times to get on the ground, but Randall did not comply.

[4] Geesy fired warning shots toward a wooded area, and Randall stated, “I'm gonna go get mine[ ]” and walked in the direction of his truck. Tr. Vol. III, p. 33. However, Randall suddenly turned and ran in the opposite direction from his truck. Geesy fired his gun again, at which point Randall either dove or fell into the ditch. The red and white cars and all their passengers left the cemetery without checking on Randall. As they left, they passed Stephanie, who had had “a bad feeling” and had driven over to the cemetery. Tr. Vol. II, p. 119. When the passengers of the two cars saw Stephanie, they yelled at her and flipped her off again. Stephanie found Randall face down in the ditch. Randall died from a gunshot wound to the torso, with the bullet entering his back and exiting from his chest.

[5] Geesy fled to Tennessee but returned to Indiana about a week later and turned himself in to the authorities. The State charged him with murder and obstruction of justice as a Level 6 felony and filed a notice of intent to seek a sentence enhancement for his use of a firearm. A jury convicted Geesy of both charges and found that he had used a firearm in the commission of the offense of murder. The court sentenced him to fifty-six years, enhanced by ten years. Geesy appeals his conviction of murder.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Geesy contends the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. 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), trans. denied. That is, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the jury's verdict. Id.

[7] A claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Stewart v. State, 167 N.E.3d 367, 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied; Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(a) (2019). With respect to self-defense claims, Indiana law distinguishes force from deadly force. Here, Geesy used deadly force. The self-defense statute provides that an individual is justified in using deadly force if the individual reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to himself or a third person. I.C. § 35-41-3-2(c). The phrase “reasonably believes,” as used in the self-defense statute, “establishes both a subjective and an objective standard to evaluate the reasonableness of a defendant's belief that force was necessary to protect against the imminent use of unlawful force.” Turner v. State, 253 N.E.3d 526, 535 (Ind. 2025). “Subjectively, the defendant must actually believe force is necessary, and objectively, that belief must be one that a reasonable person would form given the circumstances.” Id.

[8] To prevail on a claim of self-defense involving deadly force, the defendant must show (1) he was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) he did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence; and (3) he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Justice v. State, 237 N.E.3d 1154, 1158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied. When a defendant raises a self-defense claim, the State bears the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements. Id. (quoting Stewart, 167 N.E.3d at 376). The State may meet this burden by rebutting the defense directly with an affirmative showing the defendant did not act in self-defense or by relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief. Id. Whether the State has satisfied its burden is a question of fact for the jury. Stewart, 167 N.E.3d at 376.

[9] Where 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Ervin, 114 N.E.3d at 896. The fact finder's conclusion concerning whether a defendant acted in self-defense is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. Hall v. State, 166 N.E.3d 406, 413 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Griffin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 375, 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied). “ ‘The trier of fact is not precluded from finding that a person used unreasonable force simply because the victim was the initial aggressor.’ ” Hall, 166 N.E.3d at 413 (quoting McCullough v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1135, 1138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied).

[10] The facts most favorable to the verdict demonstrate that there was an initial physical altercation that occurred in front of the white car between Ryan and Randall. Geesy then stepped up from behind the white car to its passenger side with his handgun aimed and propped on the car's mirror and ordered Randall to get on the ground. Tr. Vol. III, p. 30. Geesy fired the first shot into the woods, and Randall responded by stating something to the effect of: “[G]o ahead little boy. I get a crazy check. I'm crazy. I have P.T.S.D. I get a check for being crazy.” Id. at 32. Randall, who was standing in front of the white car on the driver's side, stepped toward the passenger side. Geesy repeated his command for Randall to get on the ground and fired a second shot into the woods. Randall did not comply with Geesy's directive and started arguing with Ryan again. Geesy fired a third shot, at which time Randall stated, “I'm gonna go get mine[ ]” and walked in the direction of his truck, which was still running with the driver's door open. Id. at 33. Geesy took this to mean that Randall was going to his truck to get a gun, but Randall suddenly turned around and ran in the opposite direction from his truck. Geesy fired a fourth shot that hit Randall in the torso and killed him.

[11] In his videotaped statement to police that was viewed by the jury at trial, Geesy first gave a manufactured version of events in which Ryan was the shooter. Ex. 109 (Video recording of Geesy's stmt to police). The officers called Geesy on his lie, and he then presented them with the version in which he was the shooter. This account aligned with the testimony of Brandi's mother and Brandi's oldest son who testified on behalf of the defense and identified Geesy as the shooter. Geesy's version of the events at the cemetery was that Randall was shot because he “ran into my fire.” Ex. 109 at 34:37-39. Geesy further stated he did not see a gun on Randall's person but that Randall kept reaching toward his waistband, and Geesy feared for his group's safety. Id. at 35:40-42. Neither Brandi's mother nor Brandi's son said anything about Randall reaching toward his waistband. The jury was free to discredit Geesy's claims that Randall was reaching toward his waist and, more importantly, that he ran into the line of fire of Geesy's gun. See Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71, 73 (Ind. 2001) (affirming it is within jury's province to judge credibility of witnesses).

[12] But even if the jury believed Geesy's claims, his use of deadly force was not reasonably necessary under the circumstances. The level of force that an individual may use to protect himself must be proportionate to the situation, and when an individual uses more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances, the right to self-defense is extinguished. Hall, 166 N.E.3d at 414 (quoting Pinkston v. State, 821 N.E.2d 830, 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied). After Randall and Ryan engaged in their physical altercation, Geesy willingly participated in and increased the level of violence by aiming a gun at Randall and firing shots into the woods and then at Randall. Randall was not using deadly force or acting in such a way that his use of force was imminent. Rather, he was unarmed and began moving away from Geesy and his group. Even Randall's sudden change of direction was not in order to head back toward the group but was still in a direction away from the group, as evidenced by the entry wound in his back.

[13] In sum, even though Randall was the initial aggressor, the fact that Geesy entered the fray with a handgun and then shot an unarmed Randall in the back as he ran away, supports the conclusion that Geesy was not laboring under a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. Geesy's arguments to the contrary amount to an invitation that we reweigh the evidence and the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do. Moreover, the fact that Geesy responded to Randall's aggression with disproportionate force cuts against his claim of self-defense.

Conclusion

[14] For the reasons stated above, we conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Geesy's claim of self-defense.

[15] Affirmed.

Shepard, Senior Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Felix concur. Altice, C.J., and Felix, J., concur.