Michelle Gil, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Michelle Gil appeals his conviction of domestic battery, as a Class A misdemeanor, following a jury trial. The only issue he raises on appeal is whether the State presented sufficient evidence to negate his claim of self-defense. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 19, 2025, Mia Campbell (“Mia”) was living with her partner, Gil; Mia's two children; and Kira Campbell (“Kira”), who was both Mia's sister and Gil's friend. Kira and Mia were cleaning their apartment in preparation to host others to watch a UFC fight that day. Gil and Mia got into an argument and then left the apartment for a period of time. When they returned, Gil was more relaxed and friendly, which led Kira to believe that Gil had been drinking.

[3] Gil continued to drink in the bedroom he shared with Mia and became more irritated with and dismissive of Mia. Mia could smell alcohol on Gil, whose behavior continued to get worse. Mia saw empty Fireball bottles called shooters “on” Gil's person. Tr. at 92. Both Kira and Mia encouraged Gil to stop drinking by taking drinks away and providing food and water. Gil was intoxicated, slurring words, stumbling a little bit, and being very sociable with the people who had arrived to watch the fight.

[4] At some point Gil went back to the bedroom. Mia also went into the bedroom because she was concerned about Gil. Mia urged Gil to go to sleep. The two then argued about a trip they were planning to take the next day. Gil wanted to leave immediately, but Mia wanted to wait until the morning when Gil was sober and could help Mia drive. Gil became angry and started yelling, so Mia said she was going to text her sister to come in to help defuse the situation. Gil then grabbed Mia's phone and threw it into a television, breaking the television and shattering the phone.

[5] Mia became upset over the television and said “something” to Gil about it. Id. at 97. Gil then placed both hands around Mia's throat and squeezed until Mia started to feel weak, had trouble breathing, and was unable to speak. Gil was on top of Mia, pinning her body and legs underneath him, but Mia was able to move one arm. Mia hit Gil on top of the head, which caused no injury, and Gil then “backed off” of Mia. Id. at 99. Mia ran into a closet, Gil followed her and said “sorry,” and Mia then ran outside to her car. Id. at 99-100.

[6] Mia texted Kira, and Kira came out to the car. Mia was shaken up, her voice was “very quivery,” and she was crying and distraught. Id. at 71. Kira went back in and spoke with Gil in the bedroom. She did not notice any injuries on Gil. Kira asked if Gil was “that much of a man that you're going to put your hands on [Mia's] throat just because she said she was going to get [Kira] in the room because you were being irate with [Mia].” Id. at 86. Gil replied, “[N]o, bro, that's not why[.]” Id. When Kira left the bedroom, Gil followed her and slipped on some water on the floor. When he fell, Gil's head hit the floor, causing a gash above his left eye. Mia did not cause that injury.

[7] Mia's brother called the police. An officer who responded to the scene saw water on the floor of the apartment with nearby blood drops. He spoke with Gil, who stated that he and Mia had argued about infidelity, and that he got upset and “began choking” Mia. Id. at 122. Gil said that Mia had then punched him in the head, he then let go of her, and she then ran out of the room. The officer observed that Gil had glossy eyes and smelled of alcohol, and Gil later admitted to drinking alcohol. After the police informed Gil that they were arresting him and why, Gil changed his explanation about what had happened, claiming that Mia started choking and punching Gil first. He claimed that he then choked Mia in response to her choking and hitting him. The officer observed red marks on Mia's neck but not on Gil's neck.

[8] The State charged Gil with Level 6 felony strangulation, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief. At his jury trial, Gil claimed that Mia started the aggression, that he did not throw the phone at the television, and that he only pushed Mia away but did not choke her or put two hands on her neck. Gil also claimed that Mia continued to hit him, splitting his eye lid open, and that he remained in the bedroom until the police arrived. After evidence was presented, the trial court gave a self-defense instruction to the jury.

[9] The jury found Gil guilty of domestic battery but not guilty of the other charges. The trial court sentenced him to 365 days of incarceration, with fifty days executed and 315 suspended to probation. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Gil challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to negate his claim of self-defense to domestic battery. To convict Gil of domestic battery, as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gil knowingly or intentionally touched Mia, a household member, in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3(a). “A person engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2. Gil concedes that he knowingly “pushed” Mia, with whom he lived, but alleges that he did so in self-defense. Appellant's Br. at 9. The standard on appellate review of a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same as the standard for any sufficiency of the evidence claim. Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 2000). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. “We consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence.” Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009) (internal citations omitted). If there is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact, then the verdict will not be disturbed. Id.

[11] A valid claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Birdsong v. State, 685 N.E.2d 42, 45 (Ind. 1997). The defense is defined in Indiana Code Section 35-41-3-2(c), which states, in relevant part:

A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force․.

No person,․ shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

[12] In a claim of self-defense that does not involve deadly force, a defendant must show that he used reasonable force to “protect[ ] himself from what he ‘reasonably believe[d] to be the imminent use of unlawful force.’ ” Cutler v. State, 249 N.E.3d 1123, 1126 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (quoting Dixson v. State, 22 N.E.3d 836, 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied), trans. denied. Once a defendant satisfies this initial requirement, the State bears the burden of disproving the elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt to rebut the defendant's claim. Id. The State may meet this burden by rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief. Quinn v. State, 126 N.E.3d 924, 927 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Whether the State has met its burden is a question of fact for the factfinder. Id.

[13] Here, sufficient evidence establishes that, contrary to Gil's assertions, he did not use force to protect himself from what he reasonably thought was the imminent use of unlawful force by Mia; rather, he was the initial aggressor in the physical altercation with Mia. Mia testified that Gil pinned her down on the bed and squeezed her neck hard enough that she had difficulty breathing. She further testified that she was the one who had to defend herself by hitting Gil on the head to get him to stop choking her. “A conviction can be sustained on only the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even when that witness is the victim.” Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012). However, here, Mia's testimony was corroborated by the police officer's observation of red marks around Mia's neck but not Gil's, the broken television and cell phone in the bedroom, Kira's testimony that Gil fell and hit his head when he followed her out of the bedroom, and the blood droplets next to the water on the floor in another part of the apartment.

[14] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Gil's conviction of domestic battery and disprove his claim of self-defense. Gil's contentions to the contrary are merely requests that we reweigh the evidence and judge witness credibility, which we may not do. We affirm.

[15] Affirmed.

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Scheele, J., concur.