Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2031 | May 16, 2018 Page 1 of 7

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

Michael R. Fisher

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Gregory Smith,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 16, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1709-CR-2031

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Sheila Carlisle, 

Judge

The Honorable Stanley Kroh, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G03-1606-MR-24373

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2031 | May 16, 2018 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] Gregory Smith appeals his conviction for murder. We affirm.

Issue

[2] The sole issue before us is whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain Smith’s 

conviction.

Facts

[3] At 10:47 p.m. on June 21, 2016, Smith called 911 and reported that he had 

come home to find Eric Bonds unresponsive on the floor. Smith and Bonds 

were in a romantic relationship and were living together. When Smith came 

home, Bonds was wearing only his underwear and was already dead. Police 

officers were dispatched to their apartment at 10:51 p.m. When the officers

arrived on the scene, they found a large amount of blood throughout the 

apartment, including on the couch, floor, walls, door, in the kitchen, and in the 

hallway outside the apartment. There were numerous signs of a struggle in the 

apartment; appliances, a microwave, and silverware were on the floor in the 

kitchen, and cushions in the living room were in disarray. The officers asked 

Smith to step out of the apartment and observed what appeared to be blood on 

his shirt. Officers conducted an extensive search of the apartment as well as the 

area around the apartment but did not find the murder weapon.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2031 | May 16, 2018 Page 3 of 7

[4] Smith was taken to the police station, placed in an interrogation room, and 

questioned about the incident. Smith spoke to officers numerous times, 

providing conflicting and inconsistent accounts in these various statements. 

Initially, Smith told officers that he and Bonds argued around 3:00 p.m., that 

the argument did not become physical, and that he left the apartment after the 

argument. At another point, Smith claimed that the argument with Bonds did 

become physical but that there was no knife involved in the fight. In Smith’s 

final account to the officers, he claimed that Bonds attacked him with a knife,

that he pulled Bonds’ arms down to his sides while he was holding the knife, 

and that he may have stabbed Bonds at that time.

[5] Neighbors in the apartments below testified to hearing a loud crash or thud 

sound as though someone had fallen or dropped a heavy object, and sounds of 

someone moving things around in the apartment. One of the neighbors opened 

his apartment door after hearing the loud noises, and saw Smith walking down 

the stairs and out of the building carrying something.

[6] Bonds died of a stab wound to the left side of his chest. The injury extended

three to three-and-one-half inches into Bonds’ body, fracturing the rib, 

puncturing the lung, and perforating the left ventricle of Bonds’ heart. Dr. 

Darin Wolfe, a forensic pathologist, testified that this severe injury would have 

caused Bonds to lose blood every time his heart beat. Dr. Wolfe also testified 

that death would likely result in about five or ten minutes, and that a person of 

slight stature, like Bonds, would enter shock faster than a larger person because 

they have a lower blood volume to lose. Dr. Wolfe further testified that this 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2031 | May 16, 2018 Page 4 of 7

injury “would be difficult to survive, even if you were standing there with a 

thoracic surgeon next to you.” Tr. Vol. II p. 12. It would have required 

significant force to cause this injury. Bonds had injuries consistent with a 

struggle, including scratches to the left side of his face and neck, and on the side 

of his hands. Bonds also had a large, deep abrasion on the back of his fingers 

on his left hand. Smith had a cut on his hand consistent with his hand slipping 

onto the blade of a knife, and a bite mark on his chest. 

[7] The State charged Smith with murder, and he elected to have a bench trial. At 

trial, Smith again claimed that he pulled Bonds’ arms down to his side while 

Bonds had the knife, but he testified that he did not stab Bonds. Smith claimed 

that, after placing Bonds’ hands at his side, he left the apartment while Bonds 

was standing, alive, and not bleeding. Smith also claimed that he did not take 

the knife with him and that Bonds had the knife when he left. Smith further 

claimed that the apartment was not covered in blood when he left and that he 

returned to find Bonds dead and the apartment covered in blood. Smith argued 

that he acted in self-defense. The trial court questioned Smith’s credibility. 

After reviewing the evidence, the trial court found Smith guilty of murder. 

Smith now appeals his conviction.

Analysis

[8] Smith claims there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for murder

and that the State failed to rebut his self-defense claim. 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. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2031 | May 16, 2018 Page 5 of 7

State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 801 (Ind. 2002). When analyzing a claim of insufficient 

evidence to support a conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence 

and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 

130, 133 (Ind. 2016). “It is the factfinder’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.” Id. The evidence does not have to 

overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and it is sufficient if an 

inference may reasonably be drawn to support the conviction. Id.

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

Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 2000). “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; 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.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c). To prevail on a selfdefense claim, the defendant must show that he: (1) was in a place where he 

had a right to be; (2) acted without fault; and (3) was in reasonable fear or 

apprehension of bodily harm. Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). 

“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.” Wilson 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2031 | May 16, 2018 Page 6 of 7

v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002). “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.” Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind. 1999). “If a defendant is 

convicted despite his claim of self-defense, this Court will reverse only if no 

reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800-01.

[10] Smith argues that the State failed to negate his self-defense argument and that 

the evidence at trial was not sufficient to sustain the burden of proof. 

According to Smith, Bonds was the initial aggressor. Smith claimed that Bonds 

had tackled him, struck him with the microwave, and came after him with a 

knife. However, the State presented evidence that Smith not only had blood on 

his shirt when officers arrived, but Smith also changed his story multiple times 

to officers and even at trial. As of the time of trial, Smith claimed that he pulled 

Bonds’ arms down to his side while Bonds had the knife, but claimed that he 

did not stab Bonds. Smith and Bonds’ neighbors testified to hearing a loud 

crash or thud sound on the night in question. Following the loud noise, one of 

the neighbors saw Smith walking down the stairs and out of the building 

carrying something. Smith claimed that Bonds had the knife when Smith left 

the apartment, but officers were unable to locate the murder weapon.

[11] Bonds died of a stab wound to the left side of his chest. Dr. Wolfe testified that 

it would have required significant force to cause Bonds’ injury. This court has 

held that “[t]he amount of force that an individual may use to protect himself 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1709-CR-2031 | May 16, 2018 Page 7 of 7

must be proportionate to the urgency of the situation.” Pinkston v. State, 821 

N.E.2d 830, 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. “When a person uses more 

force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances, the right of selfdefense is extinguished.” Id. Smith’s injuries, conduct, and the amount of force 

used on Bonds was not that of someone acting in self-defense, but in fact was

that of someone acting with intent to kill without justification. At the time of

trial, Smith had changed his story once again, claiming that he did not stab 

Bonds, and that Bonds was standing, alive, and not bleeding when he left the 

apartment. This testimony was wholly inconsistent with a claim of self-defense. 

The State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Smith’s self-defense claim.

Conclusion

[12] There is sufficient evidence to sustain Smith’s conviction for murder. We 

affirm.

Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Mathias, J., concur.