BLAIR v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Charles S. Blair was convicted of murder, criminal recklessness, and a firearm enhancement for shooting an unarmed man at a party, and he was sentenced to 80 years. He now appeals, arguing the State failed to rebut his claim of self-defense, the trial court erred in admitting photos of him holding guns, and his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The evidence most favorable to the verdicts follows. Hailey Milby and her fiancé, Matthew Heath, hosted a birthday party for a friend at their Fort Wayne house on the night of December 11, 2023. Concerned that guests would bring guns to the party, Milby and Heath asked another friend, Nolan Cook, to serve as party “security.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 143. Cook was armed with a gun and patted guests down as they entered the party.

[3] Milby invited two teenagers—Taylor Roach and Daniela Deroache—to the party. Roach brought her boyfriend, Blair (who turned 19 the next month), and Blair's friend, Kody McNabb. The four of them arrived in McNabb's car around 11:00 p.m. Blair had a gun, which he tried to bring inside the party several times, but Cook didn't let him.

[4] Milby also invited 23-year-old Nilan Pearson to the party, and he arrived around 1 a.m. Pearson didn't have a gun. Id. at 181; Tr. Vol. 4 p. 22. Not long after Pearson arrived, Milby told the partygoers that the party was winding down and that Roach and Deroache—who were drunk, “obnoxious,” and “bickering,” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 148—needed to leave. Blair, McNabb, and Roach decided to leave without Deroache, even though she had come with them. This upset Milby. Blair, McNabb, Roach, and others left the house, walked to the backyard, and entered McNabb's car.

[5] Milby approached the car to talk to the group about leaving Deroache behind. There were five people in the car. McNabb was in the driver's seat, Roach was in the rear middle seat, and Blair was in the rear passenger-side seat. Milby directed the conversation to Roach, but Blair “butt[ed]” in. Id. at 154. The conversation, which started “respectful,” became a “little aggressive” with “[n]ames ․ being called towards” Milby, so she walked away and went inside the house. Id.

[6] Pearson, Heath, and Cook then approached the car. Heath and Cook stood back while Pearson walked up to the rear passenger door, where Blair was seated, and told the group that since they brought Deroache to the party, they needed to take her home. Blair said no, and Blair and Pearson started arguing. Blair, who was still seated in the car, threatened to fight Pearson and had to be held back. Pearson didn't threaten anyone. See id. at 236; Tr. Vol. 4 pp. 20-21. Blair told Pearson, in a threatening manner, “Bet I won't do nothing.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 187. He also said, “I'm going to T this bit*h up.” Tr. Vol. 3 p. 9. “[A]fter [Blair] threatened [Pearson],” Pearson “grabbed” him. Id. at 21. Blair and Pearson “shove[d]” each other, but no “punches” were thrown. Id. at 27; see also Tr. Vol. 2 p. 236. Blair remarked, “You're going to fight me? Okay, well, we can fight like men.” Tr. Vol. 3 p. 4. At that point, Blair grabbed his gun, said, “I'm with that,” and put his gun “almost directly on” Pearson. Id. A “bang” rang out as Blair fired the “first shot” into Pearson's chest. Id. at 4, 18, 27.

[7] Pearson “jumped back” and “clenched at his chest towards the area of his heart and look confused.” Id. at 4. Pearson took off running, and Blair “continue[d] firing” in his direction. Id. at 29-30. Blair fired “four or five” shots. Id. at 18. Pearson ran to a gas station across the street. He was taken to a hospital, where he died.

[8] Meanwhile, Heath told Blair to leave. Blair responded, “F you,” and then shot at him. Id. at 5. Blair also shot at Cook, who ran for cover and then “fire[d] back” 17 rounds with his own gun. Id. at 30. McNabb, Blair, and Roach drove away, and McNabb and Blair took Roach home. McNabb and Blair then went to McNabb's grandfather's house, where they spent the night.

[9] About ten hours later, at 11:34 a.m., Blair texted his brother, “I killed someone yesterday I'm scared.” Ex. 98 p. 141. His brother responded, “What?” and Blair sent him a local news article about the shooting. Id. at 141-42. Blair said he “still d[id]n't have a warrant” for his arrest and that he “got to get from the city until it blows over.” Id. at 144, 147. About thirty minutes later, police apprehended Blair and took him into custody. His gun was never found.

[10] The State charged Blair with murder, Level 6 felony criminal recklessness, and a firearm enhancement. A jury trial was held in October 2024. In opening statements, defense counsel argued that Blair acted in self-defense. During trial, the State admitted, over Blair's objection, four photographs retrieved from his cell phone. See Exs. 27-30. In each photo, Blair is holding one or two handguns and displaying them for the camera. McNabb is next to Blair in three of the photos. All four photos were captured by Blair's phone in December 2023 (the month of the shooting). The State also admitted seven jailhouse phone calls from Blair. In one call, from January 1, 2024, Blair asked the person on the other end if they had McNabb's “new number” because “I want one of y'all to be coaching him because I don't trust” him. Ex. 114 at 4:40-4:55.

[11] Blair took the stand and admitted that he shot Pearson with his gun, a Smith & Wesson 9 mm pistol. Blair claimed that he “really d[id]n't know” what happened to his gun after the shooting but identified it as “the small black pistol” in Exhibits 27-30. See Tr. Vol. 4 pp. 61-62, 76. According to Blair's version of events, Pearson approached the car, opened the rear passenger door, said, “I'll shoot every bit*h a** ni**a in the car,” and then “hit” him on the “right side of [his] face.” Id. at 58, 75. Blair said that at about the same time, he “heard a boom.” Id. at 58. Blair said he then grabbed his gun and fired “[o]ne” shot at Pearson. Id. at 59. Blair couldn't “remember if [Pearson] shot or not.” Id. at 71; see also id. at 69 (“I still don't know if [Pearson] ever shot at me.”). Blair said he feared for his life.

[12] McNabb testified similarly. He stated that Pearson opened the rear passenger door and threatened to shoot everyone inside the car. According to McNabb, Pearson hit Blair in the face (even though McNabb didn't see it), and Blair shot Pearson only after another shot was fired. McNabb was “pretty sure” Pearson fired the first shot (even though he didn't see Pearson with a gun). Tr. Vol. 3 p. 236; Tr. Vol. 4 pp. 6, 8. McNabb claimed that Blair shot “[a] handful of times.” Tr. Vol. 3 p. 246. Finally, McNabb acknowledged that people had been “trying to contact” him on Blair's behalf and that he had received a “threat” from “[Blair] or a mutual friend.” Id. at 248; Tr. Vol. 4 p. 7.

[13] The jury, which was instructed on self-defense, see Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 95, found Blair guilty as charged. After the trial court read the verdict, Blair exclaimed, “Fu*k if they recording. You's a bit*h, ni**a.” Tr. Vol. 4 p. 135. Blair was removed from the courtroom.

[14] At sentencing, evidence was presented that as a juvenile, Blair had an informal adjustment in Allen County in 2018 and a delinquency adjudication in Texas in 2019 for evading arrest, unauthorized use of a vehicle, and unlawful carrying of a weapon. In the Texas case, Blair was unsuccessfully discharged from probation after an attempted escape from a juvenile facility. As an adult, Blair was convicted of ten counts of felony smuggling of persons in Texas in 2023 and sentenced to two years. In May 2023, he was paroled and placed on mandatory supervision. But he absconded shortly thereafter and was returned to prison. In November 2023, one month before the shooting, Blair was returned to parole, which was transferred to Allen County.

[15] Defense counsel requested a sentence of 60 years, while the State requested “enhanced consecutive sentences.” See id. at 146, 156. The trial court found three aggravators: (1) Blair's criminal history; (2) he was on parole out of Texas at the time of the shooting; and (3) prior attempts at rehabilitation had failed. The court acknowledged that Blair had some mental-health issues but found that they didn't “rise to the level of mitigators.” Id. at 157. The court noted that “[e]ven if they did,” the aggravators outweighed them. Id. The court sentenced Blair to consecutive terms of 60 years for murder, 2 years for criminal recklessness, and 18 years for the firearm enhancement, for a total of 80 years.

[16] Blair now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. The evidence is sufficient to rebut Blair's self-defense claim

[17] Blair first contends that 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.

[18] “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 provides:

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). As our Supreme Court recently explained, “self-defense justifies the use of force when” the following three elements are satisfied: (1) the defendant “acted without fault”; (2) the defendant “was in a place where he had a legal right to be”; and (3) the defendant “was in real danger of death or great bodily harm or was in such apparent danger as caused him in good faith to fear death or bodily injury.” Turner, 253 N.E.3d at 537 (quotation omitted).

[19] The State argues that it rebutted Blair's self-defense claim because “the evidence showed that [he] was the initial aggressor and thus not someone to whom self-defense was available.” Appellee's Br. p. 16. The State cites Indiana Code section 35-41-3-2(g)(3), which provides that “a person is not justified in using force if”:

the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.

[20] Blair, however, claims that Pearson “provoked and instigated” the fight, not him. Appellant's Br. p. 18. The evidence most favorable to the verdicts shows otherwise. That is, Blair threatened to fight the unarmed Pearson, Pearson didn't threaten anyone, and, although Pearson and Blair shoved each other, Pearson didn't punch him in the face. In addition, Blair fired the “first shot” into Pearson's chest and continued shooting at him as he ran away and then shot at others. After the shooting, Blair fled the scene, discarded his gun, texted his brother that he killed someone, and discussed leaving town. The evidence is sufficient to prove that Blair was the initial aggressor.

[21] The State also argues that even if Pearson punched Blair in the face, Blair's response to shoot the unarmed Pearson in the chest “plainly exceeded the force reasonably permitted in that situation.” Appellee's Br. p. 19. We agree. The right of self-defense is “extinguished” when a person uses “more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances.” Hall v. State, 231 N.E.3d 868, 875 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (concluding that the defendant was not “defending himself in a proportionate manner” when he shot the victim because his “self-defense argument was based on his belief that [the victim] had been swinging a knife at him, but no knife was found at the scene”), trans. denied. Blair's response was not proportionate to the perceived threat. See Tr. Vol. 4 p. 157 (trial court's remarks at sentencing: “All you had to do was show him that gun. You did not have to fire that weapon at that time.”). The evidence is sufficient to rebut Blair's self-defense claim.

II. Any error in admitting the photos was harmless

[22] Blair next contends that the trial court erred in admitting the photos of him holding guns (Exhibits 27-30) because they had little probative value and were unfairly prejudicial under Indiana Evidence Rule 403.¹ Evidence Rule 403 provides, “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”

[23] Blair argues that the photos “did not aid in determining whether [he] acted in self defense and [their] only purpose was to infer that [he] was a criminal.” Appellant's Br. p. 15. The State responds that the photos were relevant because “they made more probable the fact that Blair had access to a weapon of the type used in his crime.” Appellee's Br. p. 21 (quotation omitted). The State also argues that the photos weren't unfairly prejudicial because “possessing and carrying a handgun doesn't itself make someone a criminal.” Id. at 24.

[24] Given Blair's self-defense claim, which he asserted during opening statements, the probative value of the photos was low. But even assuming the trial court erred in admitting the photos, the error was harmless. When an appellate court determines whether a non-constitutional error was harmless, Indiana Appellate Rule 66(A)’s “probable impact test” controls. Hayko v. State, 211 N.E.3d 483, 492 (Ind. 2023), reh'g denied, cert. denied. In conducting our review under this test, “we consider the likely impact of the improperly admitted or excluded evidence on a reasonable, average jury in light of all the evidence in the case.” Id. “[T]he error's probable impact is sufficiently minor when—considering the entire record—our confidence in the outcome is not undermined.” Id.

[25] Our confidence in the outcome is not undermined here. Several people testified that Blair had a gun and shot Pearson, and Blair himself admitted that he shot Pearson with his Smith & Wesson 9 mm pistol, which was never recovered. Blair identified the gun as the “small black pistol” in the photos. In addition, as discussed above, the State presented evidence that Blair shot an unarmed man and then fled the scene, discarded his gun, texted his brother that he killed someone, and discussed leaving town. Any error in admitting photos of Blair holding a gun he admitted using to shoot Pearson was harmless.

III. Blair has failed to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate

[26] Finally, Blair contends that his 80-year sentence is inappropriate and asks us to reduce it to 50 years, which is 10 years less than defense counsel requested at sentencing. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that an appellate court “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” The court's role under Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers,” and “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants must persuade us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[27] The sentencing range for murder is 45 to 65 years, with an advisory sentence of 55 years. I.C. § 35-50-2-3(a). The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is 6 months to 2.5 years, with an advisory sentence of 1 year. I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b). And the sentencing range for a firearm enhancement is 5 to 20 years. I.C. § 35-50-2-11(g). Here, the trial court sentenced Blair to consecutive terms of 60 years for murder, 2 years for criminal recklessness, and 18 years for the firearm enhancement, for a total of 80 years. This is 7.5 years less than the maximum Blair faced.

[28] Blair acknowledges that the shooting was “senseless” but claims that he “fired only one shot” after Pearson punched him in the face and someone else fired first. Appellant's Br. p. 27. But the State presented a much different version of events, including that Blair threatened to fight the unarmed Pearson, Pearson didn't threaten anyone, Pearson didn't punch Blair in the face, Blair fired first, and Blair continued shooting at Pearson as he ran away and then shot at others. After the shooting, Blair fled the scene, discarded his gun, texted his brother that he killed someone, and discussed leaving town. The nature of the offenses does not support revision of Blair's sentence.

[29] As for Blair's character, he highlights his age at the time of the shooting (one month shy of turning 19) and that he “appear[ed]” to have some “psychological issues.” Id. at 27-28. He claims that an 80-year sentence is “a mathematical life sentence” that doesn't allow for rehabilitation. Id. at 29. While 80 years is no doubt a long sentence, Blair's character supports it. Although Blair briefly acknowledges that he has a juvenile and adult criminal history, he doesn't acknowledge his failures on supervision, that he was on parole (for a second time) at the time of the shooting, that he threatened McNabb and tried to influence his trial testimony, and his comments after the jury returned its verdict. Blair has failed to persuade us that his less-than-maximum sentence is inappropriate.

[30] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   As the State notes, Blair doesn't argue on appeal that the photos were inadmissible under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b). See Appellee's Br. p. 25.

Vaidik, Judge.

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