Maurice Berry, Jr., Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Memorandum Decision by Judge Pyle

Statement of the Case

[1] Maurice Berry, Jr., (“Berry”) appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, for Level 1 felony attempted murder,¹ Level 2 felony voluntary manslaughter,² and Level 5 felony possession of a machine gun.³ He argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to: (1) rebut his self-defense claim; and (2) support his conviction for Level 5 felony possession of a machine gun. Concluding that the State presented sufficient evidence to: (1) rebut Berry's self-defense claim; and (2) support his conviction for Level 5 felony possession of a machine gun, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issues

1. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Berry's self-defense claim.

2. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Berry's conviction for Level 5 felony possession of a machine gun.

Facts

[3] The facts most favorable to the judgment reveal that Berry and Shaianne Cole (“Cole”) dated during middle school and high school. As they got older, they grew apart and ended their relationship. Thereafter, Cole began dating Maurice Garrett (“Garrett”), and they had a child in 2023. One year later, in 2024, Cole and Garrett separated, and Cole rekindled her relationship with Berry, who was expecting a child with Dashanay Williams (“Williams”). Garrett did not know that Cole had rekindled her relationship with Berry or that she had confided in Berry about the relationship issues that she had had with Garrett.

[4] On March 30, 2024, at approximately 7:45 p.m., twenty-one-year-old Berry dropped Williams off at an East Chicago grocery store and then drove to a nearby gas station (“the gas station”). Berry parked Williams’ SUV (“the SUV”) at the pump that was located directly across from the door to the gas station's convenience store (“the store”) and sat in the SUV for four to five minutes. Berry then exited the SUV, entered the store, and walked to the area of the store that had refrigerated beverages. After placing a bottled beverage in the pocket of his jacket, Berry walked to the front of the store where two cash registers were located next to each other and directly across from the store's front door.

[5] Forty-nine-year-old Javier Olvera Aguilar (“Aguilar”) was standing at one of the cash registers. He was paying for two bottles of soda to accompany the family's planned pizza dinner. Aguilar's twenty-year-old son, Adolfo (“Adolfo”), was waiting for Aguilar in their car.

[6] As Berry walked past Aguilar to the other cash register, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Garrett walked into the store, which was equipped with multiple audio and video cameras that recorded the interaction between Garrett and Berry. Specifically, as Garrett walked into the store, he looked at Berry, said something to him, and began to reach into the pocket of his jacket. (State's Exhibit 120 at 16:32-:34).⁴ Berry then reached into his pocket, pulled out a gun, and fired multiple shots at Garrett before running out of the store. (State's Exhibit 120 at 16:36-:38). The shooting lasted less than two seconds. During the shooting, Berry stumbled backwards, and Garrett turned away from Berry, pulled out his gun, and ran to the back of the store. Garrett did not shoot his gun. Garrett was shot one time, and Aguilar, who was standing between Berry and Garrett, was shot four times.

[7] Berry fled from the scene in the SUV and drove to a friend's house. Garrett, who had been shot in the arm, ran across the street to his brother's apartment. After hearing multiple gunshots and watching people run out of the store, Adolfo, who did not see Aguilar, ran into the store. Adolfo found Aguilar lying on his back with blood coming out of his eyes, nose, and ears. Adolfo attempted to perform CPR on Aguilar; however, Aguilar died as a result of the gunshot wounds. Garrett was transported to a local hospital and then transferred to a Chicago hospital.

[8] Following the shootings, law enforcement officers discovered that the store's video cameras had recorded the shootings. In addition, law enforcement officers found in the store twelve shell casings (“the twelve shell casings”), which Gary Police Department (“GPD”) Detective James Nielson (“Detective Nielson”) entered into the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (“NIBIN”). Also, following the shootings, Williams identified Berry as the shooter after viewing a still photograph taken from the store's recordings, and Garrett identified Berry in a photo array.

[9] Four days after the shootings, in early April 2024, the State charged Berry with: (1) murder for killing Aguilar; (2) Level 1 felony attempted murder for attempting to kill Garrett; (3) Level 3 felony aggravated battery for injuring Garrett; (4) Level 4 felony operating a loaded machine gun; (5) Level 5 felony possession of a machine gun; and (6) Class A misdemeanor theft.⁵ Law enforcement officers arrested Berry in Chicago.

[10] Also, in April 2024, in response to his NIBIN entry, Detective Nielson received “a hit” from the Chicago Police Department (“the CPD”). (Tr. Vol. 4 at 79). Specifically, Detective Nielson received a message that the CPD had in its custody a Glock (“the Glock”) that left shell-casing markings that were like the markings found on the twelve shell casings.

[11] A GPD crime scene investigator (“the crime scene investigator”) went to Chicago, test-fired the Glock, which was a standard Glock with no modifications, and collected the shell casings.⁶ A Lake County Crime Lab forensic scientist compared the shell casings from the Chicago test-fires to the twelve shell casings and determined that all the shell casings had been fired from the Glock.

[12] At Berry's four-day trial in May 2025, the jury heard the facts as set forth above and watched State's Exhibit 120, including the video of the shootings. In addition, Lake County Sheriff's Department Forensic Firearm Examiner Sam Perez (“FE Perez”) testified that a machine gun is a fully automatic weapon. According to FE Perez, it is possible to make a Glock handgun fully automatic by adding a Glock switch. FE Perez further explained that a Glock switch is a

switch that's placed on the back plate of that slide of that firearm, and there is a shear. It causes a shear, which when you press the trigger on that firearm, it puts pressure on that disconnector of the trigger which causes it to continue to fire all over again, where if that wasn't there, the trigger block would stop it from firing again. You would have to press the trigger again.

(Tr. Vol. 5 at 55-56).⁷

[13] In addition, FE Perez testified that a Glock switch would enable the shooter to fire more rounds faster and that when “the firearm continues to fire, ․, it's a little harder to handle because of the power and the velocity from the rapid fire.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 59). The State directed FE Perez to watch a short clip of a video of the shooting (“the clip”) and asked him if he could conclude “anything about the nature of the firearm being used[.]” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 60). After twice watching the clip, FE Perez testified that he was not able to answer the State's question.

[14] During cross-examination, Berry asked FE Perez to explain a binary trigger. FE Perez responded as follows:

[A] binary trigger is where in one trigger pull you could basically get two fired cartridges, so when you pull the trigger, obviously the ․ one cartridge would get fired. As you depress it, it would cause it to fire one more, so every time you pull the trigger, you would get basically -- theoretically you would get two cartridges to be fired.

(Tr. Vol. 5 at 66). Berry further asked FE Perez if a binary trigger would sound like the gun in the clip. According to FE Perez, he did not know because during his twelve years as a firearm examiner, he had never encountered a binary trigger.

[15] Thereafter, when responding to questions from the jury, FE Perez testified that it was very easy to install and uninstall a Glock switch. He further testified that he did not know whether twelve rounds could be fired in such a short time with an attachment other than a Glock switch.

[16] Also, during the trial, Garrett testified that he had gone to the store to purchase snacks and had been shot “literally, like, as soon as [he] [had] stepped in the door[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 84). Garrett explained that he had not noticed that Berry had a gun until he had been shot. He also testified that the gun was shooting off so fast that he had not been able to count the number of shots that had been fired. In addition, Garrett testified that he had not pulled out his firearm, which he had kept on his hip, until after he had been shot and that he had then run to the back of the store without firing any shots. He further testified that he could not have fired any shots from his gun because there was not a round in the chamber. During cross-examination, Garrett testified that when he had walked into the store, he had reached into his pocket to retrieve his money.

[17] On the other hand, Berry testified that as he was walking past Aguilar to get to one of the cash registers, Berry had noticed Garrett walk through the door and into the store. According to Berry, he believed that when Garrett had walked through the door, Garrett had made a comment to taunt him and had been reaching into his jacket for a gun. Berry further testified that he had “fired [his] weapon because [he] [had] felt as if [Garrett] was going to shoot [him][,]” and he was in fear for his life. (Tr. Vol. 5 at 132). Moreover, Berry acknowledged that law enforcement officers had found twelve shell casings in the store. However, he further testified that he had pulled the trigger of his gun six times. Specifically, according to Berry, his gun had a binary trigger, which he believed was legal, and that each pull of the trigger had released two shots. Berry also testified that he had fled from the store after the shooting because he had believed that Garrett was an “immediate threat[.]” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 134). Specifically, according to Berry, after the shooting, he had not been able to see Garrett and had not known where Garrett had gone. Berry further testified that he had not realized that he had shot Aguilar but he “thought [Aguilar] would have ducked or something like that, anything somebody else would do.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 152).

[18] The jury convicted Berry of Level 2 felony voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of the murder charge, Level 1 felony attempted murder, Level 3 felony aggravated battery, and Level 5 felony possession of a machine gun.⁸ Further, the trial court found that Berry had used a firearm during the commission of the attempted murder. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Berry to an aggregate sentence of eighty-two (82) years to be served in the Department of Correction.

[19] Berry now appeals.

Decision

[20] Berry argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to: (1) rebut his self-defense claim; and (2) support his conviction for Level 5 felony possession of a machine gun. We address each of his contentions in turn.

1. Self-Defense Claim

[21] Berry first argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his self-defense claim. We disagree.

[22] The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same as the standard for any sufficiency of the evidence claim. Cole v. State, 28 N.E.3d 1126, 1136-37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. at 1137. Additionally, 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.

[23] A valid claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Id. “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.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c). In addition, a person is justified in using deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat “if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person[.]” I.C. § 35-41-3-2(c). In order to prevail on a claim of self-defense, a defendant must show that: (1) he was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) he acted without fault; and (3) he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Cole, 28 N.E.3d at 1137.

[24] When a claim of self-defense is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State has the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements. 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 its case-in-chief. Id. Whether the State has met its burden is a question of fact for the factfinder. Id.

[25] Here, Berry argues that the evidence was insufficient to rebut his claim of self-defense. Specifically, Berry contends that he had a right to be in the store, he acted without fault, and he had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm when he saw Garrett reach into the pocket of his jacket.

[26] However, our review of the evidence reveals that Berry fired twelve shots at Garrett. We have previously stated that the firing of multiple shots undercuts a claim of self-defense. See Hood v. State, 877 N.E.2d 492, 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Therefore, even if Berry had been justified in using some level of force, the jury could have reasonably determined that he used unreasonable force when he shot twelve bullets at Garrett. See Orozco v. State, 146 N.E.3d 1038, 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (explaining that even if Orozco had been justified in using some level of force, the jury could have reasonably determined that he used excessive force when he shot the victim five times in the back and once in the side), trans. denied.

[27] We further note that Berry's conduct after shooting Garrett, including fleeing the scene, failing to call for medical assistance for Garrett, and failing to contact law enforcement, was not consistent with that of an innocent man who had acted in self-defense. See id. (explaining that Orozco's conduct of fleeing the scene and disposing of evidence rather than calling for medical assistance or contacting the police is probative evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have concluded that the murder was not committed in self-defense).

[28] Lastly, the only evidence that Berry's reaction was reasonable was contained in his testimony that he feared for his life. The jury, however, had no obligation to credit Berry's testimony and, after watching the videos of the shootings and hearing Garrett's testimony and Berry's testimony, did not. See McCullough v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1135, 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Ultimately, Berry's argument is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do. See Cole, 28 N.E.3d at 1137. The State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Berry's claim of self-defense.

2. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[29] Berry also argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 5 felony possession of a machine gun. Again, we disagree.

[30] “Our standard for reviewing evidentiary sufficiency challenges is well established, as we have made clear that it is the fact-finder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction.” Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1090 (Ind. 2025) (cleaned up). “A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (cleaned up). We review only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom and will reverse “only where it is shown that no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 1090-91 (cleaned up).

[31] Indiana Code § 35-47-5-8 provides that “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally owns or possesses a machine gun commits a Level 5 felony.” Further, Indiana Code § 35-31.5-2-190(a)(1) provides that “[m]achine gun means a weapon that ․ shoots ․ automatically more than one (1) shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

[32] Berry specifically contends that “[w]hile the handgun [that he] possessed ․ had a rate of fire beyond that of an ordinary handgun, the State failed to provide sufficient evidence that it in fact was a machine gun.” (Berry's Br. 18). However, our review of the evidence most favorable to the judgment reveals that FE Perez testified that a machine gun is a fully automatic weapon and that it is possible to make a Glock a fully automatic weapon by adding a Glock switch. According to FE Perez, a Glock switch would enable a shooter to fire more rounds but is somewhat harder to handle because of the power and velocity of the rapid firing. FE Perez also testified that a Glock switch is very easy to install and uninstall. In addition to hearing FE Perez's testimony, the jury saw videos of the shooting from different angles. Specifically, during that shooting, Berry fired twelve shots in less than two seconds and stumbled backwards as he was firing his gun. This evidence supports the jury's finding that Berry possessed a machine gun. His argument that he possessed a Glock with a binary trigger is an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1090. The State presented sufficient evidence to support Berry's conviction of Level 5 felony possession of a machine gun.

[33] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (murder); and I.C. § 35-41-5-1 (attempt).

2.   I.C. § 35-42-1-3.

3.   I.C. § 35-47-5-8.

4.   State's Exhibit 120 is a chronological compilation of videos from multiple cameras throughout East Chicago that law enforcement officers discovered during the investigation of this case. Relevant to the issues in this appeal are the videos from the store's cameras. The time stamps on the store's videos are sixty-two minutes behind the actual time.

5.   The trial court subsequently granted the State's motion to dismiss the Level 4 felony operating a loaded machine gun charge.

6.   The CPD would not allow the crime scene investigator to take the Glock back to Indiana.

7.   The pagination on the side of Transcript Volume 5 is not aligned with the pagination at the bottom of the transcript's pages. We cite the page numbers at the bottom of the pages.

8.   The jury acquitted Berry of the Class A misdemeanor theft charge, and the trial court did not enter judgment of conviction for Level 3 felony aggravated battery because of double jeopardy concerns.

Pyle, Judge.

May, J., and Scheele, J., concur.