GALLARDO v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Santiago Gallardo appeals his convictions for three counts of battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official, all as Level 5 felonies. Gallardo raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In October 2022, Gallardo was an inmate at the Daviess County Security Center. The center has a rule that requires all inmates to wear a “uniform” that consists of fluorescent green “scrubs” any time the inmate is in the day room. Tr. Vol. 2 at 113-14. The purpose of the uniform is to allow officers to “tell [the inmates apart] from a regular person or a guard or something.” Id. at 114.

[3] On October 5, Gallardo was in the day room eating lunch. Gallardo was wearing a thermal shirt instead of his fluorescent green shirt. Officer Vanessa Betancourt asked Gallardo to put on the correct shirt, but he “declined.” Id. at 137. Officer Betancourt then went to Officer Russell Conrad, the assistant jail commander at the time, to ask for assistance.

[4] Officer Conrad, who had a “bit of a rapport” with Gallardo, went to speak with him. Id. at 116. Officers Greg Mundy, John Berry, and Betancourt went with Officer Conrad. Officer Conrad approached Gallardo and asked why he did not have his shirt on. Officer Conrad observed that Gallardo was “agitated,” and Gallardo began cursing at the officers. Id. Officer Conrad attempted to escort Gallardo to his room. In doing so, Officer Conrad “went to move” Gallardo's food tray, which “set [Gallardo] off.” Id. at 117.

[5] Gallardo picked up his tray and hit Officer Conrad with it. Gallardo then punched Officer Conrad “in the face a couple [of] times[.]” Id. Officers Mundy and Berry attempted to help Officer Conrad. The officers were “slipping” in the food that had been spilled, and Gallardo “was fighting them.” Id. Officer Mundy took a “strike to the face” and “several elbows to [his] head and spine[.]” Id. at 126. Officer Berry also sustained injuries. Officer Betancourt attempted to use “shock gloves”¹ to subdue Gallardo, but she was unsuccessful because of his long sleeves and pants. Id. at 117. Ultimately, Officer Conrad was able to use his shock gloves on Gallardo's neck, and the officers were able to restrain him.

[6] The State charged Gallardo with three counts of battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official, all as Level 5 felonies.² The court held a jury trial on Gallardo's charges on March 19, 2025. During the trial, all four officers testified to the events that had occurred in the day room. In his defense, Gallardo testified that he had felt “trapped” when the officers approached him and that he struck Officer Conrad to “defend” himself. Id. at 147. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Gallardo guilty as charged. The court entered judgment of conviction accordingly and sentenced Gallardo to concurrent terms of three years on each count. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Gallardo contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. “ ‘A valid claim of defense of oneself or another person is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.’ ” Simpson v. State, 915 N.E.2d 511, 514 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Hobson v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1118, 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)), trans. denied. Indiana Code Section 35-41-3-2(c) provides that “[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.” To prevail on a claim of self-defense that does not involve deadly force, the defendant must show that he was in a place where he had a right to be; acted without fault; and was protecting himself from what he reasonably believed to be the imminent use of unlawful force. See Dixson v. State, 22 N.E.3d 836, 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans denied.

[8] Once a defendant claims self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving at least one of the elements of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind. 1999). It may meet its burden by rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by relying on the sufficiency of its evidence in chief. Id. Whether the State has met its burden is a question for the trier of fact. Id.

[9] When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense, the standard of review remains the same as for any sufficiency of evidence claim. Id. at 699. We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses but look solely to the evidence most favorable to the judgment with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. We will affirm a conviction where such evidence and reasonable inferences are substantial evidence of probative value sufficient to support the judgment. Id.

[10] On appeal, Gallardo contends that the State failed to rebut his claim of self-defense because the evidence demonstrates that he had a right to be in the day room. In addition, he asserts that his testimony established that he was in reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm and that his fears “were justified, as evidenced by the attack on him by these officers.” Appellant's Br. at 8. And he maintains that his testimony was “unrefuted” by the State. Id.

[11] However, the evidence most favorable to the verdict demonstrates that, after Gallardo declined Officer Betancourt's request that he put on his green shirt, Officer Betancourt asked Officer Conrad for help. Officer Conrad then approached Gallardo with Officers Mundy, Berry, and Betancourt. Officer Conrad walked up to Gallardo with “a neutral body posture” and was “just trying to talk to him.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 123. Gallardo then began swearing at Officer Conrad, and Officer Conrad attempted to escort Gallardo to his room. At that point, Gallardo picked up his lunch tray and hit Officer Conrad with it. Gallardo then punched Officer Conrad. Then, when other officers attempted to help Officer Conrad, Gallardo hit and elbowed Officer Mundy, and Officer Berry sustained injuries as well. And Officer Mundy testified that, while the officers would have been “justified in counterstriking,” they “did not[.]” Id. at 126.

[12] In other words, the evidence demonstrates that the officers were attempting to perform their jobs peacefully when Gallardo instigated a fight. Based on that evidence, a reasonable jury could determine that Gallardo did not have a reasonable fear of the imminent use of unlawful force and that he did not act without fault. The only contrary evidence came from Gallardo's own testimony. But the jury was not required to believe his testimony, even if uncontradicted. See Wood v. State, 999 N.E.2d 1054, 1064 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied, cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 250 (2014). Gallardo's argument on appeal is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we cannot do. The State presented sufficient evidence to negate Gallardo's claim of self-defense. We therefore affirm Gallardo's convictions.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   According to Officer Conrad, shock gloves are “kind of like a taser, but they're weaker, but they're to help make somebody comply when they're totally noncompliant.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 117.

2.   The State initially charged him with four counts, but the court dismissed one count on the State's motion.

Bailey, Judge.

Tavitas, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.