WETZEL v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Jason Wetzel appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for aggravated battery, as a Level 3 felony. Wetzel 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] On May 18, 2020, Wetzel was at his home with his adult son, Jeremiah, who lived with him. The two men were on the upstairs floor drinking heavily while watching a movie. That evening, Wetzel called 9-1-1 and reported that he had “shot [his] son.” Ex. 3 at 0:15-0:16. Wetzel told the operator that Jeremiah was conscious and “trying to breathe the best he can.” Id. 0:54-0:55. The 9-1-1 operator asked Wetzel to try to stop the bleeding, and Wetzel said he was “trying the best [he] can[.]” Id. at 1:23-1:25. Wetzel then said that he “shouldn't have had this fight” with Jeremiah. Id. at 2:15-2:18. Wetzel reported that Jeremiah had lost consciousness but that his chest was still “moving up and down.” Id. at 4:46-4:49.

[3] Officers with the La Porte County Sheriff's Office responded to Wetzel's home. When officers first arrived, Wetzel exited his home, and officers placed him in handcuffs. Wetzel told officers that Jeremiah was inside the house and downstairs. Officers observed that Wetzel had “the odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from him” as well as “glossy and bloodshot” eyes. Tr. Vol. 2 at 63. Some officers went inside to look for Jeremiah while others remained with Wetzel. While he remained outside, Wetzel was “generally calm” and informed officers that Jeremiah had “attacked him.” Id. at 64, 68. Wetzel also made a statement “somewhere along the lines of, you don't ever cross your father.” Id. at 68.

[4] The officers who entered the house were unable to find Jeremiah on the first floor, so they again asked Wetzel where Jeremiah was located. At that point, Wetzel informed officers that Jeremiah was upstairs. When officers discovered Jeremiah, they observed one gunshot wound to his abdomen and one to his shoulder. Jeremiah had died from his injuries. The results of Jeremiah's autopsy revealed that he had died from the two gunshot wounds and that he had been shot from at least three feet away. The gunshot to Jeremiah's abdomen caused “massive bleeding” that would have killed him “in less than a minute.” Id. at 226, 233.

[5] Given Wetzel's level of intoxication, officers transported him to the hospital instead of jail. During the drive to the hospital, Wetzel asked about Jeremiah's condition. When the officer responded that he was unaware, Wetzel responded: “if he dies, then oh well; but if he lives that would be good.” Id. at 98. Wetzel also said: “he should not have attacked me” and “that was one too many times.” Id.

[6] Wetzel was too intoxicated to interview on the date of the offense, so officers interviewed him the next day. During that interview, Wetzel stated that, while he and Jeremiah were drinking, Jeremiah “all the sudden got violent” and grabbed Wetzel out of his chair. Ex. 35(1) at 8:12-8:14.¹ Wetzel also stated that he told Jeremiah: “leave me alone or I'll shoot ya.” Id. at 8:57-8:59. Wetzel stated that Jeremiah then “lunged at [him], and the gun went off.” Id. at 9:00-9:04. Wetzel maintained that Jeremiah had initiated the altercation and said that Jeremiah was “up in [his] face” and that they were “almost right against each other.” Id. at 23:24-23:27. And he acknowledged that he had his single action revolver out and that he had pointed the gun at Jeremiah and told Jeremiah to leave him alone. When asked how many times he fired the gun, Wetzel responded that he remembered firing it only “once.” Id. at 24:16-24:17.

[7] Officers again interviewed Wetzel on May 20, two days after the shooting. During that interview, Wetzel clarified that Jeremiah had “leaned forward” and taken a step toward him when he fired the gun. Ex. 35(2) at 11:38-11:39. He then acknowledged that Jeremiah never physically punched him, but he said he had been “scared” when Jeremiah grabbed him. Id. at 15:30-15:32. He also acknowledged that Jeremiah did not have a gun or any other weapon. He again stated that he had fired his gun only one time and that it took “two hands” for him to fire his gun. Id. at 19:45-19:46. Toward the end of the interview, the officer again asked Wetzel why he had shot Jeremiah, and Wetzel again stated that Jeremiah had “lunged at” him. Id. at 44:41-44:43. And when the officer asked Wetzel what he meant by that, Wetzel responded that Jeremiah had “stepped forward.” Id. at 46:23-46:24.

[8] The State charged Wetzel with murder, a felony, and aggravated battery, as a Level 3 felony. In addition, the State alleged that he had used the firearm in the commission of an offense. Thereafter, the court held a jury trial. At the conclusion of that trial, the jury found Wetzel not guilty of murder, and it could not reach a verdict on the aggravated battery charge.

[9] The court then held a two-day bench trial on the aggravated battery charge on August 26 and 27, 2024. During the trial, the State had admitted as evidence the 9-1-1 call as well as the videos from both interviews. Throughout the trial, Wetzel maintained that he had acted in self-defense when he shot Jeremiah. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found Wetzel guilty of aggravated battery. The court then determined that Wetzel had used a firearm in the commission of an offense. The court entered judgment of conviction accordingly and sentenced Wetzel to seventeen years in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Wetzel contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. Self-defense is a valid justification for an otherwise criminal act. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 699 (Ind. 1999). In situations when deadly force is used, a defendant must establish that he was in a place where he had the right to be, acted without fault, and was in reasonable fear or apprehension of death or great bodily harm. Id. at 699-700.

[11] 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. Id. at 700. 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.

[12] 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.

[13] On appeal, Wetzel contends that the State failed to rebut his claim of self-defense because he “repeatedly told police that Jeremiah attacked him” and because he “complained” to police “that his back hurt[ and] that he injured his head and that he had a bruise on his wrist.” Appellant's Br. at 14. And he argues that “[n]o photographs were taken of [his] injuries” and that “[n]o investigation was conducted” regarding his allegation that Jeremiah had hit him and thrown him against a wall “a couple of weeks prior to” Jeremiah's death. Id. at 15. Thus, he maintains that “it is clear that an inference cannot be reasonably drawn to support the [judgment,] and the evidence was insufficient to find [him] guilty ․ because the State failed to prove that [he] didn't act in self-defense.” Id. at 15.

[14] However, the evidence most favorable to the judgment demonstrates that Wetzel shot Jeremiah twice while intoxicated simply because Jeremiah “lunged at” and “stepped forward” toward Wetzel. Ex. 35(2) at 44:41-44:43, 46:23-46:24. Further, even Wetzel acknowledged that Jeremiah did not have a firearm or any other weapon and that Jeremiah had never “physically punched” him. Id. at 11:52-11:54. The evidence also shows that Wetzel shot Jeremiah twice, even though firing his revolver required “two hands.” Id. at 19:45-19:46. And, contrary to Wetzel's statement to officers that Jeremiah was right “up in his face” and “almost right against” him, the autopsy revealed that Wetzel had shot Jeremiah from at least three feet away. Ex. 35(1) at 23:24-23:27.

[15] Even if we were to believe that Jeremiah had initiated a physical altercation and grabbed Wetzel, nothing about that shows that Wetzel was at risk of death or great bodily harm. Further, to the extent Wetzel relies on previous attacks on him by Jeremiah, those actions were in the past and cannot justify the use of deadly force weeks thereafter. The evidence was sufficient to show that, at the time Wetzel shot Jeremiah, Wetzel was not in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to justify his use of deadly force. As such, the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Wetzel's claim of self-defense.

Conclusion

[16] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Wetzel's conviction. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Exhibit 35 contains the videos of two interviews. For ease of reference, we will cite to the first interview, conducted on May 19, 2020, as “Ex 35(1)” and to the second interview, conducted on May 20, 2020, as “Ex. 35(2).”

Bailey, Judge.

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