Elijah I. Parchman, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Elijah I. Parchman was convicted of murder and attempted murder. He now appeals, arguing the State failed to rebut his claim of self-defense. Finding the evidence sufficient to rebut Parchman's self-defense claim, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In April 2019, Ikeem Minor and his brother, Bobby Minor, lived in Evansville. Bobby had lived in Chicago and moved in with Ikeem the month before. On April 5, Bobby, Ikeem, and their friend Michael Green drove to Virginia Food Market. The Food Market was down the street from where Bobby and Ikeem lived, and they had been there many times. That night, they stopped in to buy drinks and lottery tickets. After making the purchase, Bobby and Michael walked outside while Ikeem stayed inside to scratch off his lottery tickets. When Ikeem was finished, he walked outside and saw Bobby and Michael standing by their car. Bobby was yelling back and forth with a group of five or six men who were smoking next to an apartment building on the other side of the parking lot.

[3] One of the people in the other group was 20-year-old Parchman, who had a gun in his pocket and a permit to carry it. Ikeem heard his brother say that the group “got [him] fu**ed up,” which meant that they “got the wrong person.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 100, 120. Ikeem also heard his brother say, “Y'all don't know me, I'm not from here.” Id. at 101. Ikeem, Bobby, and Michael—who did not have guns—began to walk “shoulder to shoulder” toward the group “to see who it was and what was really going on.” Id. at 102, 129. As they did so, Parchman pulled out his gun and started shooting. Ikeem and Michael ran back into the Food Market, at which point they realized that Bobby was not with them. Bobby had been shot in “the left buttocks, on the posterior part of the body,” which pierced the iliac artery, and was “crawling back to the car.” Id. at 102, 148. Ikeem realized then that he had also been shot in the hand and the “right inferior buttock.” Ex. p. 57. Ikeem and Michael drove Bobby to the hospital, where he later died.

[4] After the shooting, Parchman returned to his apartment and called 911. He told the dispatcher that he had been involved in a shooting and that he was the shooter. See Ex. 45A. He said multiple times that he had a gun permit. He explained that “three dudes” had walked from the Food Market toward his apartment building and that he didn't know where they went. Id. Parchman gave the dispatcher his name and address, said that he put his gun on his counter, and asked for the police to come to his apartment. When the police later searched Parchman's apartment, they found on the counter a gun, a magazine that contained five rounds of ammunition, and Parchman's identification card and gun permit.

[5] Evansville Police Department Detective Phillip Luecke investigated the crime scene. He found a “cluster” of seven shell casings in the apartment building's parking lot and two copper jackets in the Food Market's parking lot. Tr. Vol. II p. 28. He also found a trail of blood starting where the copper jackets were found and leading to the Food Market's door.

[6] The State charged Parchman with murder, attempted murder (Ikeem), and a firearm enhancement.¹ The defense theory at the jury trial was that Parchman acted in self-defense and in defense of his property. Ikeem, who said he had never had any dealings with Parchman before that night, testified as detailed above. He also testified that before Parchman started shooting, no one told them not to come any closer or warned them that they had a gun. Id. at 112. Ikeem also stated that he didn't hear or see Bobby make any threats or gestures to the group. Id. at 126. When asked how far away he was from Parchman when Parchman started shooting, Ikeem responded, “I wasn't close. I still couldn't see who it was.” Id. at 113. The State showed Ikeem an aerial photograph of the area, and he marked where he, Bobby, and Michael were standing when Parchman started shooting. According to Ikeem's markings, they were still in the Food Market's parking lot. See id. at 111; Ex. 2.

[7] Detective Luecke testified about the significance of where the shell casings and copper jackets were found. He explained that a copper jacket “comes off [of a bullet] when it hits an object,” which indicated to him that the bullets from Parchman's gun “had come into contact with something” where he found the copper jackets. Tr. Vol. II pp. 17, 18. He took measurements between the shell casings, which suggested approximately where Parchman had been standing when he fired his gun, and the copper jackets and trail of blood, which suggested approximately where the bullets had struck Ikeem and/or Bobby. According to these measurements, Parchman was 117 feet from his targets when he shot them and 56 feet from the door to his apartment building. See id. at 28-30; Ex. 29.

[8] Parchman testified that as Ikeem, Bobby, and Michael started walking toward their group, he told them not to come over because they “d[id]n't belong.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 171-72. Parchman said when they didn't stop and “reached for something in their pants, waist, their waistband or their pocket,” he took his gun out of his pocket and “discharged [it] twice towards the ground” as a warning. Id. at 170, 172. Parchman testified that Ikeem, Bobby, and Michael, who were all “[l]arger” than him, didn't heed the warning but kept approaching them “even faster,” at which point he “shot back again” “at least five times.” Id. at 171, 179, 200. Parchman said Ikeem, Bobby, and Michael were “[a]bout eight to ten feet” away when he shot at them. Id. at 190; see also id. at 199 (about five to ten feet away). According to Parchman, he stopped shooting when they turned around. Even though Ikeem and Bobby were shot on their backsides, Parchman maintained that he didn't “knowingly” shoot at them after they turned around. Id. at 202. Instead, he surmised that they must have “turned” “as soon as the shots rang.” Id. at 106. Parchman said he “fear[ed] for [his] life” during the incident and that he “was just trying to defend [him]self on [his] own grounds where [he] live[d].” Id. at 179, 203.

[9] The trial court gave two jury instructions on self-defense: the first addressed whether Parchman “acted in defense of his dwelling or adjoining property” and the second addressed whether he “acted in self-defense.” Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 132, 134. The jury found Parchman guilty of murder and attempted murder, and Parchman admitted to the firearm enhancement. The trial court sentenced him to 51 years.

[10] Parchman now appeals.²

Discussion and Decision

[11] Parchman contends the State failed to rebut his claim of self-defense. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the State's evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense, the standard of review is the same as for any sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim. Turner v. State, 253 N.E.3d 526, 533 (Ind. 2025). We do not reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility, and we only look to the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Id. “We will affirm the defendant's conviction if there is evidence, including reasonable inferences, that supports the judgment.” Id.

[12] “Self-defense is a legal justification for what would otherwise be criminal conduct, and it operates as a complete bar to conviction.” Id. at 534 (citations omitted). “Once the defendant invokes self-defense, the State has the burden to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one element of the justification.” Id. Indiana's self-defense statute sets forth the following test for defense of self or a third person:

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. However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force; and

(2) 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 or the commission of a forcible felony.

Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c) (emphases added). The statute sets forth the following test for defense of one's dwelling and curtilage:

A person:

(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

Id. at (d) (emphasis added).

[13] 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, 253 N.E.3d at 535. “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.

[14] Here, even assuming Parchman subjectively believed that force was necessary, the State presented evidence that the belief was not objectively reasonable. The evidence most favorable to the verdicts reveals that Parchman was over 100 feet away from Ikeem, Bobby, and Michael (and not 5-10 feet as he claimed at trial) and over 50 feet from the door to his apartment building when he fired his gun. Ikeem explained that they walked toward the group at the apartment building to see what was going on and that no one from the other group warned them not to come closer or that they had a gun. Ikeem didn't hear or see any threats from Bobby, who was the only one exchanging words with the other group. In addition, Ikeem, Bobby, and Michael didn't have guns, and the medical evidence showed that Ikeem and Bobby were shot on their backsides. Although Parchman testified that Ikeem, Bobby, and Michael “reached for something in their pants, waist, their waistband or their pocket,” the jury was free to discredit his testimony, which it apparently did given all the other evidence. The evidence is sufficient to rebut Parchman's claim that he acted in self-defense or in defense of his dwelling or adjoining property.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State charged Parchman with several other offenses but dismissed them before trial.

2.   This is the second appeal in this case. After the November 2020 jury trial, the trial court ordered a new trial because the State had failed to disclose that Ikeem had a 2008 juvenile-delinquency adjudication for what would be Class B felony burglary if committed by an adult. We reversed, and the case returned to the trial court for sentencing. See State v. Parchman, 200 N.E.3d 499 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied.

Vaidik, Judge.

Judges Tavitas and Felix concur. Tavitas, J., and Felix, J., concur.