Efrem Darnell Edmondson, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Efrem Darnell Edmondson appeals his conviction of murder, asserting the evidence was insufficient to rebut his claim of self-defense. Finding the evidence sufficient to sustain his conviction, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] One evening in late November 2023, Edmondson, Korey Harris, Drew Marsh, Nigel Joyner, Tiffany Jones, and Ousman Gasama were at Harris’ apartment. Everyone was gathered in the living room except Harris and his girlfriend Marsh, who were in Harris’ bedroom packing his belongings for his upcoming move.

[3] At some point in the evening, Harris and Marsh heard Edmondson and Gasama arguing in the living room, apparently over a bottle of liquor. Harris went to the living room and calmed the men down. Harris intervened several more times and finally told the men to leave. Gasama left but returned a short time later. From the bedroom, Harris and Marsh heard arguing begin again and then heard gunshots. Gasama left the apartment and was later found dead propped against a door of the apartment building with two gunshot wounds. Edmondson also left but returned two days later and kicked in the door of Harris’ apartment to retrieve his belongings.

[4] The State charged Edmondson with murder, Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and Level 6 felony residential entry. A jury convicted Edmondson of all charges, and the court sentenced him to fifty-seven years for murder, consecutive to his sentence in another case; six years for unlawful possession of a firearm, consecutive to his murder sentence; and one year for residential entry, consecutive to his sentences for murder and unlawful possession, for an aggregate sentence of sixty-four years. Edmondson now appeals his conviction of murder.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Edmondson contends the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense the same as we do for any claim of insufficient evidence. Ervin v. State, 114 N.E.3d 888, 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. That is, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the jury's verdict. Id.

[6] A claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Stewart v. State, 167 N.E.3d 367, 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied; Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(a). With respect to self-defense claims, Indiana law distinguishes force from deadly force. Here, Edmondson used deadly force. The self-defense statute provides that an individual is justified in using deadly force if the individual reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to himself. I.C. § 35-41-3-2(c).

[7] To prevail on a claim of self-defense involving deadly force, the defendant must show (1) he was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) he did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence; and (3) he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Justice v. State, 237 N.E.3d 1154, 1158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied. When a defendant raises a self-defense claim, the State bears the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements. Id. (quoting Stewart, 167 N.E.3d at 376). The State may meet this burden by rebutting the defense directly with an affirmative showing the defendant did not act in self-defense or by relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief. Id. Whether the State has satisfied its burden is a question of fact for the jury. Stewart, 167 N.E.3d at 376.

[8] Where a defendant is convicted despite his claim of self-defense, we will reverse only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated beyond a reasonable doubt. Ervin, 114 N.E.3d at 896. The fact finder's conclusion concerning whether a defendant acted in self-defense is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. Hall v. State, 166 N.E.3d 406, 413 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Griffin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 375, 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied).

[9] The facts most favorable to the verdict demonstrate that Marsh and Harris were in the bedroom when they heard loud voices. Tr. Vol. II, pp. 116-17. Harris went to the living room where there was “a little arguing going on” but it appeared to be simply “horseplay” between Edmondson and Gasama. Id. at 144-45. Harris defused the situation, and returned to his bedroom. Id. at 117. At some point, Edmondson accused Gasama of drinking his bottle of liquor. Id. at 145-46.

[10] A short time later, Marsh and Harris heard the loud voices again in the living room. Id. at 117. Marsh and Harris both went to the living room, and Harris was able to calm the men down a second time. Id. at 117-18.

[11] Later, the situation escalated again, at which point Harris went to the living room and told everyone to leave. Id. at 119. Marsh testified: “And then we heard the door shut and we -- someone left and we believe it was [Gasama]. And then someone came back and knocked on the door and [Edmondson] let them in.” Id. It got loud again “and we heard the gunshots.” Id.

[12] Harris testified that Gasama was “pretty much under control” when the arguing began and that he had not seen Gasama with a weapon. Id. at 160, 161. Marsh testified that no one called the police because they did not know that Gasama had been shot; they thought the gunshots had been only warning shots. Id. at 127.

[13] Keely Tackett, the mother of Gasama's children, testified that Gasama had told her “there was stuff going on and if he were to pass away in that apartment complex, that [Edmondson] would've been the source of it.” Id. at 105.

[14] Dr. Matthew Cain, a forensic pathologist with the Marion County Coroner's Office, testified that the range of fire in this case was indeterminate. Id. at 226. He further testified that Gasama's cause of death was gunshot wounds to the chest and hand. Id. at 234. He also stated that Gasama was five feet, five inches tall and weighed 207 pounds. Id. at 224. The autopsy report documented that a pocketknife had been recovered from Gasama's right front pocket. Id. at 236.

[15] At trial, Edmondson's videotaped statement to police was played for the jury, and the jury received a transcript of the statement. See State's Exs. 188, 188R, 189, 189R. During the statement, Edmondson denied having any disagreement over his liquor, and denied getting “into it” with Gasama. Ex. 189R, pp. 174, 175, 179-80.

[16] Edmondson also testified on his own behalf, setting forth his version of the events that Gasama was the aggressor. He stated that he had purchased three bottles of alcohol, and Gasama and Harris each bought a bottle from him, leaving one bottle for himself. Tr. Vol. III, p. 30. Edmondson further testified that Gasama had been drinking a lot and was in “party mode” that night. Id. at 31. At one point in the evening, he addressed “boundaries and respect” with Harris and Gasama, specifically concerning his bottle of liquor, and the discussion escalated into an argument. Id. at 31-32. Edmondson testified that he was trying to defuse the situation but that Gasama “got aggressive.” Id. at 32. He stated that he had been a wrestler in school, but Gasama pinned him down and started choking him. Id. at 34. Edmondson testified that “As I tried to wiggle out the chokehold, he wrestled my earrings out of my ears that I had in at the time, and I eventually got out of it, but it took a little while. Id.

[17] Edmondson further testified that the argument paused when he got out of the chokehold, and he and Gasama separated. Id. at 34-35. Gasama began arguing again before he left the apartment. Id. at 35. Upon returning to the apartment, Gasama “started being aggressive again” and “pulled up in” Edmondson's face. Id. at 36-37. Edmondson pushed him back, and the two men separated. Id. at 37. Edmondson testified that he was trying to avoid an altercation, but Gasama charged at him and reached “for some” at his waist. Id. at 37, 59. In response, Edmondson unholstered his gun and fired two shots. Id.

[18] On cross-examination, Edmondson confirmed his statement to the police that he was not aware of Gasama having a weapon that night and that he did not see Gasama with any weapon that night. Id. at 51. He also acknowledged that he never mentioned in his statement to police that Gasama had reached for anything but instead had told police that Gasama “busted his shoulders up like he was going to go beast mode on [me].” Id. at 52. Edmondson also testified that he is six feet four inches tall. Id. at 55.

[19] Edmondson was in a place he had a right to be. Beyond that, the jury was free to believe the State's evidence. That evidence showed that Edmondson instigated the argument over a bottle of liquor, provoked Gasama, and participated willingly in the ensuing violence. The jury was also free to discredit Edmondson's self-serving assertions that it was Gasama who incited the argument and that he attempted to defuse the situation. See Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71, 73 (Ind. 2001) (affirming it is within jury's province to judge credibility of witnesses). But even if the jury believed Edmondson's claim that Gasama instigated the altercation, it still may have found that Edmondson's use of deadly force was unreasonable under the circumstances.

[20] “ ‘The trier of fact is not precluded from finding that a person used unreasonable force simply because the victim was the initial aggressor.’ ” Hall, 166 N.E.3d at 413 (quoting McCullough v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1135, 1138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied). The level of force that an individual may use to protect himself must be proportionate to the situation, and when an individual uses more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances, the right to self-defense is extinguished. Hall, 166 N.E.3d at 414 (quoting Pinkston v. State, 821 N.E.2d 830, 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied). Here, the jury heard uncontradicted evidence that Edmondson is a six-foot-four-inch former wrestler who had already broken free from Gasama's hold, and Gasama was a five-foot-five-inch man who by all accounts was unarmed. Even assuming Edmondson's testimony to be true that Gasama was charging at him and reaching for his pocket, Edmondson did not attempt to order Gasama to stop but immediately fired two shots at him. From this evidence, the jury reasonably could have found that Edmondson used deadly force that was not proportionate to the situation. Edmondson's argument is merely a request to reweigh the evidence, which we must decline.

Conclusion

[21] We conclude that the jury was free to discredit Edmondson's testimony that Gasama instigated this violence and to find that it was Edmondson who provoked Gasama. We further conclude that even if the jury determined that Gasama was the instigator, the State's evidence was sufficient to show that Edmondson's actions were not a proportionate response to the situation. Thus, Edmondson's self-defense claim fails. Accordingly, we affirm Edmondson's conviction of murder.

[22] Affirmed.

Robb, Senior Judge.

May, J., and Foley, J., concur.