MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as 

precedent or cited before any court except for the 

purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Derick W. Steele

Deputy Public Defender

Kokomo, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Vincent D. Quarles Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

July 7, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

34A02-1412-CR-871

Appeal from the Howard Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Lynn Murray, Judge

Cause No. 34C01-1209-MR-81

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Vincent D. Quarles Jr. was convicted of Class B felony aggravated battery for 

shooting a victim in the face during a group fight outside a bar in Kokomo, 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1412-CR-871 | July 7, 2015 Page 1 of 6
Indiana. Quarles now appeals arguing that the State failed to rebut his claim of 

self-defense. Although Quarles was not a part of the original fight, he willingly 

became part of the fight when he retrieved a gun from a parked car and 

followed the victim to his car and shot him in the face. Because the evidence is 

sufficient to rebut Quarles’ self-defense claim, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The facts most favorable to the verdict reveal that in the early morning hours of 

July 6, 2012, Debriel Scales, his cousin Durone Parker, and his sister Danielle 

Scales left a strip club, and Danielle drove them to Rock Bottom Grill in 

Kokomo to continue drinking. A surveillance camera at the front entrance of 

the bar captured most of the events that unfolded. See Ex. 2 (surveillance 

footage from Camera 1). Upon arrival, Debriel and Durone exited Danielle’s 

car and walked toward the front entrance of the bar. Four men, including 

Tyson Deckard, were standing outside the front entrance; Quarles was inside 

the bar. Tr. p. 236. As Debriel and Durone walked past the group, Tyson came 

up from behind Durone and punched him, knocking him to the ground. Id. at 

236-37; Ex. 2 (2:45:55 a.m. on surveillance video). When Debriel went to help 

his cousin Durone, he became involved in the fight too. Tr. p. 193. Danielle got 

out of her car to see what was going on. After realizing that Debriel and 

Durone were being jumped, she returned to her car to get some five-pound 

hand weights in an attempt to stop the fight and pulled her car near the front 

entrance of the bar. Id. at 76. But the fighting continued. 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1412-CR-871 | July 7, 2015 Page 2 of 6
[3] A few minutes later, a man in a blue-striped shirt—later identified as Quarles—

exited the bar and walked toward the fight. Id. at 239; Ex. 2 (2:49:38 on the 

surveillance video). At this point, Debriel had just gotten in and out of 

Danielle’s car.1

 Tr. p. 239; Ex. 2 (2:49:43-2:49:52 on surveillance video). 

When Debriel approached the group, Quarles ran through the bar’s parking lot 

and across Plate Street to where his car was parked. Tr. p. 239, 320. Quarles

then ran back across the street to the bar’s parking lot. Id. at 240. When 

Quarles rejoined the group, he had a gun in his hand. Id.; Ex. 2 (2:51:26 on 

surveillance video); Ex. 16 (still shot taken from surveillance video showing gun 

in Quarles’ hand). As Debriel walked to Danielle’s car, the group, including 

Quarles, closed in on him. Multiple shots were fired; Debriel was shot in the 

face but survived. Danielle saw Quarles shoot Debriel but did not know his 

name at that time. Tr. p. 95. She later identified Quarles as the shooter. 

Debriel, Durone, and Danielle did not have guns on them, and no guns were 

found in Danielle’s car or on the scene. Quarles later gave police the gun he 

used to shoot Debriel. 

[4] The State charged Quarles with Class A felony attempted murder and Class B 

felony aggravated battery. Appellant’s App. p. 12. Quarles argued self-defense 

at trial. Following a jury trial, the jury found Quarles not guilty of attempted 

1 At trial, Danielle admitted telling police in one of her statements that when Debriel went back to the car, he 

“was trying to act like he had a gun.” Tr. p. 98. Debriel testified at trial, however, that he did not pretend to 

have a gun or obtain a weapon during the fight. Id. at 211. We do not make credibility determinations on 

appeal. 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1412-CR-871 | July 7, 2015 Page 3 of 6

 
murder but guilty of aggravated battery. Id. at 126. The trial court sentenced 

Quarles to fifteen years, with thirteen years executed in the Indiana Department 

of Correction and two years executed through Howard County Community 

Corrections for in-home detention. Id. at 132. 

[5] Quarles now appeals his aggravated-battery conviction. 

Discussion and Decision

[6] Quarles contends that the State failed to rebut his claim of self-defense. The 

standard of review for 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. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 801 (Ind. 2002). We neither reweigh 

the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. 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.

[7] A valid claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. 

Coleman v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1160, 1165 (Ind. 2011). Indiana Code section 35-

41-3-2 provides:

(c) 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. 

However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force; and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1412-CR-871 | July 7, 2015 Page 4 of 6
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent 

serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission 

of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal 

jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third 

person by reasonable means necessary.

In order to prevail on a claim of self-defense, a defendant must show: (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. Coleman, 946 N.E.2d at 1165. 

Once a defendant claims self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving 

at least one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt for the defendant’s 

claim to fail. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind. 1999). 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. Id. Whether the State has met its burden is a question 

of fact for the fact-finder. Id. Self-defense is generally unavailable to a 

defendant who has entered into combat with another person or is the initial 

aggressor, “unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates 

to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless 

continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.” See Ind. Code § 35-41-3-

2(g)(3); see also Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919, 926 (Ind. 1999) (“An ‘initial 

aggressor’ and those who ‘enter into combat’ (i.e., mutually willing combatants) 

[must] declare an armistice before they may claim self-defense.”), reh’g denied. 

[8] We find that the State has negated at least one element of Quarles’ self-defense 

claim—that Quarles did not act without fault. The evidence shows that Quarles 

was not involved in the initial fight. Instead, Quarles exited the bar while the 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1412-CR-871 | July 7, 2015 Page 5 of 6
fight was occurring and ran across the street to his parked car. When Quarles 

ran back across the street, he had a gun in his hand. As Debriel walked to 

Danielle’s car, Quarles approached the unarmed Debriel and shot him in the 

face. Tr. p. 320. Because Quarles participated willingly in the violence, we 

conclude that the evidence is sufficient to rebut his self-defense claim. 

[9] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1412-CR-871 | July 7, 2015 Page 6 of 6