Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2408 | April 16, 2020 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

Scott H. Duerring

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Tina L. Mann

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Oscar Orozco,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

April 16, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2408

Appeal from the St. Joseph 

Superior Court

The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sanford, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

71D03-1902-MR-2

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2408 | April 16, 2020 Page 2 of 7

[1] Oscar Orozco appeals his conviction for Murder.1 He argues that the evidence 

is insufficient to disprove his claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts

[2] On June 10, 2017, Miguel Rosales and a group of his friends, including Orozco

and George Martinez, went to a bar in Mishawaka. At the bar, several groups 

of friends met up; the gathering included Bennie Bueno and Joe Caballero. 

After last call at the bar, the large group got up and left, walking out to the 

parking lot. Once in the parking lot, a fight broke out. “It was a rumble,” with 

everyone fighting, including Orozco. Tr. Vol. III p. 91. At some point, Orozco 

punched Caballero. 

[3] Rosales punched Bueno, knocking him down, and Bueno pulled out a gun. 

Martinez grabbed the gun, and he and Bueno struggled for possession of the 

firearm. Rosales and another individual jumped on Bueno and began hitting 

him. As the struggle continued, Rosales hit Bueno on the head with a beer 

bottle, knocking him to the ground. The blow caused a huge cut in Bueno’s 

head that bled profusely and caused a hemorrhage around his brain. Rosales 

continued to “beat[] [Bueno] up” after Bueno fell to the ground. Tr. Vol. II p. 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-3-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2408 | April 16, 2020 Page 3 of 7

191. Martinez was holding the barrel part of the gun, and the gun was going 

“up and down.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 64.

[4] At that point, Bueno was no longer fighting. He was leaned up against the 

truck with Martinez at his side. Martinez had two hands on the gun and 

Rosales had his hands on Bueno’s forearms. Orozco then ran up and shot 

Bueno five times in the right side of his back and one time underneath his arm 

on the right side of his body. Bueno staggered away, bleeding profusely, and 

fell into his friend’s arms and onto the pavement, where he died. After Orozco 

shot Bueno, Orozco, Rosales, and Martinez ran to a vehicle, yelling “let’s go, 

get out of here,” and drove away. Id. at 30. The gun was “thrown out,” and 

Orozco and his friends decided to drive back to Chicago and no one talked 

about what had happened because they “didn’t want to know.” Id. at 31, 92.

[5] On February 15, 2019, the State charged Orozco with murder and a firearm 

enhancement.2 Orozco’s jury trial began on September 9, 2019, at which he 

raised a claim that he had acted in self-defense. The jury found Orozco guilty 

of murder on September 12, 2019. Orozco waived his right to have a jury 

consider the firearm enhancement, and the trial court found him guilty of the 

enhancement. On October 11, 2019, the trial court sentenced Orozco to fortyfive years, enhanced by five years for the firearm use, for an aggregate sentence 

of fifty years imprisonment. Orozco now appeals.

2

It is unclear why there was a lengthy delay between the shooting and the filing of the criminal charges.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2408 | April 16, 2020 Page 4 of 7

Discussion and Decision

[6] Orozco’s sole argument on appeal is that the State did not disprove his claim of 

self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. 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. Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 

837, 840 (Ind. 2000). Thus, we will neither reweigh the evidence nor assess 

witness credibility. Id. If there is sufficient probative evidence supporting the 

factfinder’s conclusion, then we will affirm. Id.

[7] A person is justified in using deadly force against another person if he 

“reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent seriously bodily 

injury” to himself or a third person. Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c). To assert a 

successful claim of self-defense, a defendant must show that he (1) was in a 

place he had a right to be; (2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly 

in the violence; and (3) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. 

McEwen v. State, 695 N.E.2d 79, 90 (Ind. 1998). When the defense is raised and 

supported by the evidence, the State bears the burden of negating one of the 

elements. Id. We will reverse a conviction despite a claim of self-defense only 

if no reasonable person could say that the claim was negated by the State 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Taylor v. State, 710 N.E.2d 921, 924 (Ind. 1999).

[8] The General Assembly has decreed that a person is not justified in using force if, 

among other things, “the person has entered into combat with another 

person . . . unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2408 | April 16, 2020 Page 5 of 7

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

continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.” I.C. § 35-41-3-2(g)(3).

[9] In this case, there was a melee in the parking lot involving many people, 

including Orozco. Witnesses testified that “everybody just started fighting,” tr. 

vol. II p. 174, “everybody [was] fighting” and it was a “rumble,” tr. vol. III p. 

91, “[e]verybody was fighting and running around” and no one was trying to 

stop it, tr. vol. II p. 149, and “once the fight broke out, it was just like a domino 

effect. Everybody just started fighting,” tr. vol. IV p. 68. Orozco was part of 

the melee and punched Joe Caballero during the fight. Tr. Vol. III p. 150.

[10] In other words, Orozco was not an innocent bystander. He was a willing and 

active participant. Orozco points out that there is no evidence that he was 

involved in combat with Bueno, but in the situation of a large melee we do not 

believe that is a relevant fact. Orozco was part of a large group of people and 

was, therefore, part of the “everybody” who was fighting. We believe that a 

reasonable factfinder could have inferred from these circumstances that Orozco 

was a mutual combatant who had not withdrawn and communicated an intent 

to do so before he shot Bueno.

[11] Moreover, we also note that before Orozco shot Bueno, Bueno had already 

stopped fighting. He had been repeatedly punched by Rosales and Martinez. 

Rosales hit him with a beer bottle and knocked him to the ground, causing a 

large head wound that was bleeding profusely. The jury heard testimony that 

this significant head trauma “likely would have caused some type of disability 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2408 | April 16, 2020 Page 6 of 7

of the brain function” that would be potentially severe. Tr. Vol. III p. 17. In 

addition to the large wound caused by the bottle, Bueno also sustained the 

following injuries before he was shot: a black eye, an abrasion on his back, 

multiple abrasions on his face, and multiple small lacerations and tearing of the 

tissue in the back of his head. At the time Orozco shot him, Bueno was on the 

ground, leaned up against a vehicle. Martinez had control of Bueno’s gun and 

Rosales was holding Bueno’s forearms.

[12] A reasonable factfinder could infer from this evidence that it was no longer 

objectively reasonable for Orozco to believe that Bueno still posed a risk of 

serious bodily injury to anyone because Bueno was simply too incapacitated by 

his injuries. Additionally, Orozco shot Bueno five times in the back and once 

in the side. See Hood v. State, 877 N.E.2d 492, 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“Firing 

multiple shots undercuts a claim of self-defense.”). Therefore, even if Orozco 

had been justified in using some level of force, the jury could have reasonably 

determined that he used excessive force under the circumstances.

[13] Finally, we note that after Orozco shot Bueno, he got in the vehicle with his 

friends and fled the state, throwing out the gun at some point in the process. 

See Banks v. State, 257 Ind. 530, 538, 276 N.E.2d 155, 159 (1971) (holding that 

evidence of a defendant’s flight from the scene and subsequent disposition of 

the weapon was competent evidence of consciousness of guilt). In other words, 

Orozco’s own conduct shows that he did not believe he had acted in selfdefense. Rather than calling for medical assistance or contacting law

enforcement, he fled the state and disposed of the murder weapon. This is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2408 | April 16, 2020 Page 7 of 7

probative evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have concluded 

that the murder was not committed in self-defense.

[14] For all these reasons, we find that there is sufficient evidence supporting the 

jury’s conclusion that the State disproved Orozco’s claim of self-defense beyond 

a reasonable doubt.

[15] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bradford, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.