HARDY v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Keith Hardy (“Hardy”) appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, of murder, a felony,¹ and Level 5 felony battery.² He argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Concluding that there is sufficient evidence to support Hardy's convictions, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Hardy's convictions.

Facts

[3] The facts most favorable to the judgment reveal that on April 12, 2023, Marlon Hudson (“Hudson”) and Dakari Gill (“Gill”) spent the day at Dejhine Shelton's (“Shelton”) house in South Bend. Hudson and Shelton had a young child. That same day, Hardy spent the day at his girlfriend Angelique Pittman's (“Pittman”) house, which is located across the street from Shelton's house.

[4] In the early evening hours, Hudson and Gill were standing outside in the front yard with Hudson's young child. They noticed that Hardy, who had just walked out the front door of Pittman's house, had a firearm tucked under his armpit. Hardy yelled across the street and said something to Hudson and Gill about the way that they were looking at him.

[5] Hudson took his young child into the house and told Shelton that he was “about to go fold [Hardy] up.”³ (Tr. Vol. 1 at 90). Hudson and Shelton crossed the street and walked into Pittman's front yard while Gill remained in the street. Hudson had a firearm on his person but did not have it in his hand. At some point, Pittman exited her house and joined Hardy outside.

[6] Hudson asked Hardy if they were going to fight. Hardy responded that he did not fight and that he was from Chicago. When Hudson responded, “I'm from Gary, b*tch,” Hardy immediately fired at least eighteen shots at Hudson and Shelton, who both ran back across the street. (Tr. Vol. 1 at 93). Hudson was shot five times, and Shelton was shot one time. Hudson fired at least one shot from his gun before he died on the sidewalk in front of Shelton's house. Hardy ran from the scene, took apart his gun, dropped parts of the gun in different spots as he was running, and fled to Wisconsin.

[7] Immediately following the shooting, a law enforcement officer (“the officer”) interviewed Pittman, who told the officer that her boyfriend's name was Keif Howard and that he had returned to Chicago the day before the shooting. While the officer was interviewing Pittman, other officers gathered information and determined that a Keif Howard did not exist. When the officer confronted Pittman with this information, Pittman told the officer that her boyfriend's name was Keith Hardy, but she “stuck to the story that he went home to Chicago” the day before the shooting. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 93).

[8] On April 21, 2023, the State charged Hardy with murder and Level 5 felony battery. The State also alleged that Hardy had used a firearm in the commission of the murder. Law enforcement officers arrested Hardy when he returned to Indiana in June 2023.

[9] At Hardy's four-day trial in May 2024, the jury heard the facts as set forth above. In addition, Hardy testified that Hudson had a gun in his hand when he approached Hardy and that Hudson had fired the first shot. According to Hardy, he had only been attempting to protect himself and Pittman when he had returned fire at Hudson.

[10] In addition, Pittman acknowledged that she had not been truthful to the officer during her interview but testified that she was telling the truth that day. Pittman specifically testified that when Hudson had called Hardy a b*tch, Hudson had also pulled out a gun and fired the first shot. According to Pittman, Hardy had simply fired shots back at Hudson to protect her.

[11] The jury convicted Hardy of both murder and Level 5 felony battery. In a separate proceeding, the trial court determined that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Hardy had used a firearm during the commission of the murder.

[12] Hardy now appeals.

Decision

[13] Hardy argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Specifically, he contends that the State failed to rebut his claim that he had shot and killed Hudson and had shot Shelton in self-defense. We disagree.

[14] The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same as the standard for any sufficiency of the evidence claim. Cole v. State, 28 N.E.3d 1126, 1136-37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. at 1137. Additionally, if there is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact, then the verdict will not be disturbed. Id.

[15] A valid claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Id. “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). In addition, a person is justified in using deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat “if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person[.]” I.C. § 35-41-3-2(c). In order to prevail on a claim of self-defense, a defendant must show that: (1) he was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) he acted without fault; and (3) he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Cole, 28 N.E.3d at 1137.

[16] 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. Id. 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. Whether the State has met its burden is a question of fact for the factfinder. Id. Further, the factfinder “is not precluded from finding that a defendant used unreasonable force simply because the victim was the initial aggressor.” Birdsong v. State, 685 N.E.2d 42, 45 (Ind. 1997).

[17] Here, Hardy argues that the evidence was insufficient to rebut his claim of self-defense. Specifically, Hardy contends that he had a right to be at Pittman's house, he acted without fault, and he had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm when Hudson approached Pittman's house.

[18] However, our review of the evidence reveals that Hardy fired eighteen shots at Hudson and Shelton. We have previously stated that the firing of multiple shots undercuts a claim of self-defense. See Hood v. State, 877 N.E.2d 492, 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Therefore, even if Hardy had been justified in using some level of force, the jury could have reasonably determined that he had used unreasonable force when he fired eighteen shots, with five of those shots hitting Hudson and one of them hitting Shelton. See Orozco v. State, 146 N.E.3d 1038, 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (explaining that even if Orozco had been justified in using some level of force, the jury could have reasonably determined that he used excessive force when he shot the victim six times), trans. denied.

[19] We further note that Hardy's conduct after shooting Hudson and Shelton was not consistent with that of a man acting in self-defense. Specifically, Hardy did not call for medical assistance for Hudson and Shelton or contact law enforcement. Instead, Hardy ran from the scene, took apart his gun, dropped the parts of the gun in different spots as he was running, and fled to Wisconsin. See Seeley v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1089, 1092 (Ind. 1989) (“A jury may consider evidence of flight of the accused immediately after the commission of a crime as evidence of his consciousness of guilt.”); Orozco, 146 N.E.3d at 1041-42 (explaining that Orozco's conduct of disposing of the murder weapon and fleeing the state showed that he did not believe that he had acted in self-defense).

[20] Lastly, we note that the only evidence that Hardy's reaction was reasonable was contained in Hardy's testimony and Pittman's testimony. The jury, however, had no obligation to credit this evidence and did not. See McCullough v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1135, 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Ultimately, Hardy's argument is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do. See Cole, 28 N.E.3d at 1137. There is sufficient evidence to rebut Hardy's claim of self-defense, and, therefore, to support Hardy's convictions for murder and Level 5 felony battery.

[21] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   IND. CODE § 35-42-1-1.

2.   I.C. § 35-42-2-1.

3.   To fold someone up means to fight him.

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.