Abel Dubon-Castillo, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Abel Dubon-Castillo appeals his convictions for two counts of attempted murder as level 1 felonies. He contends that the trial court committed fundamental error in instructing the jury. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Yarley Santiago-Torres and Dubon-Castillo began dating in 2019. Despite Dubon-Castillo having a “wife” named Kassandra Ramos,¹ Transcript Volume III at 23, he and Yarley dated for several years, ending their relationship in late 2023. By February 2024, Yarley was in a new relationship that Dubon-Castillo was not happy about. Dubon-Castillo was Yarley's supervisor at work and, even after the relationship ended, would drive her to and from their place of employment and continued to pursue her romantically.

[3] Yarley lived in a house with five of her children, her mother, Aracely Torres, and her stepfather, Concepcion Rodriguez-Martinez. In early February 2024, Dubon-Castillo picked up Yarley for work. Once they arrived at work and were sitting in the parking lot, Dubon-Castillo retrieved a handgun from the glove compartment of his car. He took out the magazine, removed two bullets, and gave the bullets to Yarley. He told her that one bullet was for her and the other one was for her new boyfriend. Yarley understood this as a threat. On Saturday, February 3, 2024, Dubon-Castillo showed up at Yarley's house and asked her to “get back together” with him, but she said no. Id. at 121.

[4] On Sunday, February 4, 2024, Yarley was at her boyfriend's house and Dubon-Castillo was sending her text messages. Around 6:30 p.m., he texted Yarley asking where she was and insisting that he speak with her immediately. Around 8:30 p.m., Dubon-Castillo arrived at Yarley's house and told Aracely and Concepcion that he wanted to speak with her. He seemed “[a]s if he was angry.” Transcript Volume II at 193. At 8:17 p.m., he texted Yarley, “You have 5 minutes to be here.” Exhibits Volume VII at 61.² At 8:21 p.m., he texted, “Bring him, I'm at your house.” Id. Yarley responded, “Leave me alone,” and “Leave now.” Id. at 61-62. At 8:38 p.m., Dubon-Castillo texted Yarley, “You have 5 minutes to come here with him.” Id. at 62. At 8:54 p.m., he asked, “You're not going to come?” and “You care more about sex than the love of your family?” Id. At 9:16-9:17 p.m., he told Yarley, “You'll see what's new” and “When you see what you see, don't blame me.” Id. at 63. At 9:26 p.m., Dubon-Castillo asked, “You're not going to come save your family?” Id.

[5] Meanwhile, Kassandra had been trying to contact Dubon-Castillo to no avail. Eventually Kassandra went to Yarley's house to look for him because she knew they had been lovers and she suspected he might be at her house. Kassandra arrived at Yarley's house around 9:40 p.m. and Dubon-Castillo came outside and spoke with her. Kassandra and Dubon-Castillo began arguing and Dubon-Castillo drew a gun and pointed it at Aracely, who was standing in the doorway. Concepcion “grabbed the gun” and “pulled it backwards” out of Dubon-Castillo's hand, which caused Dubon-Castillo to fall down. Transcript Volume II at 197-198. Concepcion removed the loaded magazine from the gun and gave the gun to his granddaughter.

[6] Kassandra called Dubon-Castillo's brother to come and pick him up. Concepcion held Dubon-Castillo down until his brother arrived. Dubon-Castillo apologized for his behavior and then left and returned to his home with his brother. Concepcion called Yarley and her sister, Amarily, and informed them about the incident at the house. The sisters and their families, including Amarily's husband, Joelisberty, came to the house, and decided to call police to report Dubon-Castillo's behavior. Concepcion gave police the gun he had taken from Dubon-Castillo and officers noted that the gun had the serial number scratched off. Officers traveled to Dubon-Castillo's home. However, when they arrived, they could not locate him.

[7] While officers were at his home, Dubon-Castillo returned to Yarley's home. Concepcion, Aracely, Yarley, her boyfriend, Amarily, and Joelisberty, were sitting in the living room. Seven children were also inside the home. Yarley was sitting by the glass front door. At 10:49 p.m., Dubon-Castillo texted Yarley, “What a shame that your family doesn't matter.” Exhibits Volume VII at 63. Shortly thereafter, Yarley saw Dubon-Castillo standing outside the glass front door with a gun. As “she went to stand up ․ he shot her” in the back through the glass with a “long handgun.” Transcript Volume II at 209. Yarley “fell down, and she didn't move.” Id. at 210. Dubon-Castillo continued shooting at “everybody.” Transcript Volume III at 102. When Aracely tried to check on Yarley, Dubon-Castillo, who was still outside the locked door, shot her in the chest. Amarily and Joelisberty ran to the back of the house, while Concepcion swung a metal chair at Dubon-Castillo to try to knock the gun out of his hand, but his attempt was unsuccessful. Dubon-Castillo shot at Concepcion, striking him in the right arm.

[8] When Dubon-Castillo paused shooting for a moment to concentrate on the lock on the glass door, Concepcion picked up Aracely and placed her on a bed in the living room. Concepcion believed she was dead. Concepcion also believed Yarley was dead. As Dubon-Castillo fired at the lock on the front door, Concepcion ran to the back of the house because he knew that Dubon-Castillo “was looking for [him] with the gun.” Transcript Volume II at 216.

[9] Concepcion and Joelisberty positioned themselves on each side of a door and waited. When Dubon-Castillo walked through the door, Concepcion grabbed the gun while Joelisberty jumped on Dubon-Castillo and began punching him. Dubon-Castillo fired the gun during this struggle but it shot “upwards.” Id. at 215. Concepcion believed that if he and Joelisberty had not intervened, Dubon-Castillo “would have killed [them] all.” Id. at 218.

[10] Officers at Dubon-Castillo's home heard a dispatch for shots fired nearby and rushed to Yarley's house. They heard screaming coming from the back of the house when they arrived. Joelisberty used his body to push down the fence surrounding the house to allow officers into the backyard. Officers apprehended Dubon-Castillo and also applied a tourniquet to Concepcion's arm. Concepcion and Yarley were each transported and then airlifted to different hospitals with serious injuries. Aracely was declared dead at the scene due to suffering “a non-contact high power rifle gunshot wound to the left upper chest.” Transcript Volume IV at 173-174. At Yarley's home, police recovered a .223 caliber Ranch Rifle and numerous bullet casings that matched that rifle. During a subsequent search of Dubon-Castillo's home, officers discovered four boxes of .223 caliber ammunition and a box of nine-millimeter ammunition.

[11] On February 6, 2024, the State charged Dubon-Castillo with murder, two counts of attempted murder as level 1 felonies, burglary as a level 2 felony, and intimidation as a level 5 felony.³ The State also filed an enhancement due to the use of a firearm in the commission of the offenses. The police interviewed Dubon-Castillo twice. On February 11, 2024, Dubon-Castillo admitted that he walked into Yarley's house with a rifle but claimed that he did so to sell the gun to one of Yarley's family members. He claimed not to remember much else. On February 12, 2024, he again admitted to walking into Yarley's house armed with a rifle but reiterated that he did not remember anything that happened after he arrived. Prior to trial, Dubon-Castillo's counsel notified the court that he intended to pursue an insanity defense. Two court-appointed psychiatrists concluded that Dubon-Castillo was not insane at the time of the offenses and that he appreciated the wrongfulness of his actions.

[12] A jury trial began on August 20, 2025. At the outset, the court read to the jury preliminary instructions which included the following:

Count 2, Attempted Murder, a Level 1 felony. On or about February 4th, 2024, in Daviess County, State of Indiana, Abel Dubon-Castillo did knowingly and/or intentionally attempt to commit the crime of murder, which is to knowingly kill another human being, namely Yarley Santiago-Torres, by engaging in conduct that is knowingly or intentionally discharging a firearm with intent to kill, which conduct constitutes a substantial step towards the commission of said crime of Murder.

Count 3, Attempted Murder, a Level 1 felony. On or about February 4th, 2024, in Daviess County, State of Indiana, Abel Dubon-Castillo did knowingly or intentionally attempt to commit the crime of murder, which is to knowingly kill another human being, namely Concepcion Rodriguez-Martinez, by engaging in conduct that is knowingly or intentionally discharging a firearm with intent to kill, which conduct constitutes a substantial step towards the commission of said crime of murder.

Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 66. The court read to the jury four additional preliminary instructions referencing the requirement that, before convicting Dubon-Castillo of attempted murder, the jury needed to find that he was acting with the “specific intent to kill.” Id. at 68-69. At the conclusion of trial, the court repeated the same instructions as final instructions. Defense counsel did not object to the preliminary or the final jury instructions. The jury found Dubon-Castillo guilty as charged. The State ultimately moved to dismiss the firearms enhancement. On September 22, 2025, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of 150 years in the Department of Correction.

Discussion

[13] Dubon-Castillo asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in instructing the jury on attempted murder. We review a trial court's decision to give or refuse a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion. Hernandez v. State, 45 N.E.3d 373, 376 (Ind. 2015). We will not reverse unless the instructions as a whole mislead the jury. Buckner v. State, 857 N.E.2d 1011, 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). We consider 1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; 2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and 3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other given instructions. Hernandez, 45 N.E.3d at 376. Reversal is appropriate only where an error in giving an instruction prejudices the defendant's substantial rights. Id.

[14] Dubon-Castillo contends that “his convictions should be reversed because both the preliminary and final instructions repeatedly referenced a ‘knowing’ mens rea and failed to include at all that the State had to prove the ‘specific intent to kill.’ ” Appellant's Brief at 10. He concedes that his trial counsel did not object to the preliminary or final instructions and thus “reversal is only proper if the error was fundamental.” Id. at 11.

[15] The fundamental error exception to the contemporaneous objection requirement is “extremely narrow, and applies only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process.” Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010) (quoting Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind. 2006)), reh'g denied. To be considered fundamental, the claimed error must make a fair trial impossible. Id. (citing Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126, 131 (Ind. 2009), reh'g denied). Thus, this exception is available only in “egregious circumstances.” Id. (citing Brown v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1064, 1068 (Ind. 2003)).

[16] The Indiana Supreme Court has often reiterated the well-settled law regarding jury instructions on attempted murder:

In Spradlin [v. State, 569 N.E.2d 948 (Ind. 1991)], we determined that a jury instruction

which purports to set forth the elements which must be proven in order to convict of the crime of attempted murder must inform the jury that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, with intent to kill the victim, engaged in conduct which was a substantial step toward such killing.

569 N.E.2d at 950 (emphasis added). This requirement that the State establish the defendant's specific intent to kill in order to prove him or her directly liable for attempted murder stems from “the stringent penalties for attempted murder and the ambiguity often involved in its proof.” Hopkins [v. State], 759 N.E.2d [633,] 637 [(Ind. 2001)]. Thus, we have “singled out attempted murder for special treatment” in the form of the State's heightened mens rea showing. Id.

Rosales v. State, 23 N.E.3d 8, 11-12 (Ind. 2015). Under Spradlin, “the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense [of attempted murder] intentionally, not just knowingly or recklessly.” Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256, 270 n.15 (Ind. 2020). Although a Spradlin instructional error presents “the potential for fundamental error,” such error does not rise to the level of fundamental error if “the jury instructions, taken as a whole, sufficiently informed the jury of the State's burden of proving that the Defendant specifically intended to kill the victim.” Ramsey v. State, 723 N.E.2d 869, 872-873 (Ind. 2000).

[17] Here, the jury instructions, taken as a whole, sufficiently informed the jury that the State had the burden to prove that Dubon-Castillo possessed the specific intent to kill. First, although the charging informations for Counts II and III read to the jury as both preliminary and final instructions each referenced a knowing mens rea, both informations also alleged that Dubon-Castillo engaged in conduct, that is the knowing or intentional discharge of a firearm, while possessing the “intent to kill.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 66, 101. Second, the jury was given at least four additional jury instructions that defined attempted murder and listed the elements required, specifically stating that Dubon-Castillo must have acted with the “specific intent to kill” and the “intent to kill.” Id. at 68-69, 109-110. None of these four instructions referenced a knowing mens rea. Accordingly, the jury was clearly instructed that, to find him guilty of attempted murder, Dubon-Castillo's discharge of a firearm must have been done with the specific intent to kill. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that reversal is warranted. See Perez v. State, 872 N.E.2d 208, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that error in jury instruction which indicated that a “knowing” mens rea was sufficient to establish guilt of attempted murder was not fundamental error because “the violative language came from the charges filed by the State against Perez, and was expressed to the jury as being such,” “the trial court thereafter instructed the jury using its own words” causing “the “erroneous expression” to be “outweighed by the correct statement of the required standard,” and the court's instruction explaining the elements of attempted murder contained two admonitions that “specific intent to kill” was required and “the repetitive quality of the trial court's correct instruction on the requirement of intent to kill further aide[d] in curing the Spradlin error”), trans. denied.

[18] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Dubon-Castillo's convictions.

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The record reveals that, although they were not legally married, Kassandra considered herself to be Dubon-Castillo's wife.

2.   State's Exhibit 139 is located in Exhibits Volume VII and consists of the English translation of text messages that were originally sent in Spanish and are contained in State's Exhibit 138. We refer only to the English translation.

3.   The State filed an amended information on August 18, 2025, to correct the spelling of the victim's name.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.