Darius L. Butts, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Darius L. Butts appeals his murder conviction, alleging the State presented insufficient evidence to rebut his self-defense claim. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 9, 2022, Desmond Banks parked his Chevrolet Camaro next to a gas pump at a Marathon in Indianapolis. While Banks was inside the gas station, Butts drove his ice cream van into the parking lot and crashed into Banks’ Camaro. The entire interaction was captured on surveillance footage. See State's Ex. 3.

[3] Butts looked at the damage and started to move his van, then Banks exited the gas station and pointed at the damage. Before moving his van completely, Butts exited and approached Banks. The pair looked at the damage together and had a conversation. Banks opened the Camaro's passenger door and sat in his car while the conversation continued. Then Banks stood up, the pair exchanged words again, and Butts returned to the van and repositioned it.

[4] After parking, Butts exited the van, approached Banks again, and pulled a pistol out of his right pocket. Butts waved the pistol around and pointed with it while talking to Banks and getting increasingly animated. Butts then put the gun back in his pocket while the pair talked more. Butts pulled the gun out of his pocket again and continued waving it around. When Banks pointed toward the gas station with an empty hand, Butts pointed his gun at Banks and shot him several times. Banks fell to the ground, then Butts leaned over him and shot him several more times. Butts drove away from the scene.

[5] When police responded, Banks was deceased. Butts returned to the scene and admitted he shot Banks. After police detained him, Butts stated Banks was trying to rob him. Police recovered a pistol from Butts’ van and a second pistol from the deceased Banks’ left pants pocket. Subsequent testing determined all the bullet casings recovered from the scene were shot from Butts’ pistol. Banks’ autopsy revealed he was shot six times, including one shot in his head.

[6] The State charged Butts with murder and a firearm enhancement. At his August 2025 jury trial, Butts testified in his defense and alleged he shot Banks in self-defense. Butts admitted he struck Banks’ Camaro and said Banks demanded all the money he had on him as compensation. Butts testified that when Banks sat down in the Camaro he saw what he believed to be a gun in Banks’ pocket. Butts said that he drew his gun and shot Banks because he “felt that any second [Banks] could have easily grabbed [his gun] and pulled it out and shot me.” Tr. Vol. II p. 250.

[7] The jury found Butts guilty of murder, and Butts pled guilty to the firearm enhancement. The court sentenced Butts to sixty-three years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Butts’ sole issue on appeal is that the State presented insufficient evidence to rebut his self-defense claim. Like any other sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Stewart v. State, 167 N.E.3d 367, 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied.

[9] “Self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.” Fuller v. State, 261 N.E.3d 821, 826 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied. The self-defense statute provides that an individual has the right to use “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) (2013). A person is justified in using “deadly force” and “does not have a duty to retreat” if the person reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to himself or a third person, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. I.C. §§ 35-41-3-2(c)(1)-(2).

[10] “To prevail in presenting a self-defense claim, the defendant must show [he] was in a place where [he] had a right to be; did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence; and had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.” Stewart, 167 N.E.3d 376. “When the defendant raises a self-defense claim which finds support in the evidence, the State carries the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements.” Id. Further, “[t]he State bears the burden of disproving the defendant's self-defense claim, either by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense—or by simply relying on the sufficiency of its evidence in chief.” Fuller, 261 N.E.3d at 826 (quotations omitted). If a defendant is convicted despite his claim of self-defense, an appellate court will reverse only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[11] Here, the surveillance footage sufficiently supports the jury's rejection of Butts’ self-defense claim. The video shows Butts repeatedly brandishing a firearm, waving it around, and using it to point at the damage on the vehicles. Butts’ movements also become increasingly animated throughout the conversation. Conversely, Banks is never seen holding or otherwise displaying a firearm during any part of the interaction. What is more, after brandishing his pistol once, Butts put the pistol away before brandishing it a second time and shooting Banks. Butts visibly de-escalated the conflict then re-escalated it without provocation. It is clear that Butts was the instigator and provocateur of the violence and not under threat of imminent use of unlawful force by Banks.

[12] Finally, after Butts brandishes his weapon a second time, Banks still does not draw a weapon in return. Banks’ hands are visibly empty as he continues talking to an increasingly agitated Butts. Indeed, while Butts testified that he “felt that any second [Banks] could have easily grabbed” his gun and shot him, he never testified that Banks ever brandished a weapon placing him in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Tr. Vol. II p. 250; see Stewart, 167 N.E.3d 376. The encounter peaks when Banks points toward the gas station with an empty hand and Butts shoots him six times, including several times after Banks is lying on the ground. Reasonable jurors could conclude from this evidence that the State negated Butts’ self-defense claim. Because the State presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Butts’ use of force was not justified, we affirm.

[13] Affirmed.

Scheele, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.