Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-18 | July 20, 2015 Page 1 of 6

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 C. Borschel

Fishers, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Dominique Morris,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff,

July 20, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

49A05-1501-CR-18

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Sheila Carlisle, 

Judge

Case No. 49G03-1410-MR-46933

Robb, Judge.

Case Summary and Issue

[1] Following a bench trial, Dominique Morris was convicted of voluntary 

manslaughter, a Level 2 felony, and escape, a Level 6 felony. He presents one 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-18 | July 20, 2015 Page 2 of 6

issue for our review: whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut 

Morris’s claim of self-defense and convict him of voluntary manslaughter. 

Concluding the evidence is sufficient to support Morris’s conviction, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The facts most favorable to the court’s decision are as follows. 

[3] In September of 2014, Morris was living with his parents, David and Chantris 

Morris. Morris was on home detention and assigned a GPS monitoring unit. 

[4] On September 20, 2014, David arrived home from work at approximately 3:30 

a.m. He walked around to the back patio, where he found Morris having sex 

with Shameka Dowdy, who was Morris’s girlfriend. David yelled at Morris

and Dowdy for being disrespectful, and demanded that the two leave the house 

immediately. The two got dressed and walked around to the front of the house 

where Dowdy’s car was parked.

[5] Morris and Dowdy got into the car, and David followed them out to the car, 

continuing to yell and argue with Morris. Morris then exited the vehicle and 

ran back up to the house. Chantris was standing at the front door, and Morris

asked her where her gun was. Chantris told him “no,” transcript at 93, in an 

attempt to dissuade him from retrieving her gun, which was locked in a safe in 

the garage. Morris ran into the house and returned seconds later, carrying his 

GPS monitor and a butcher knife that he took from the kitchen. Chantris 

grabbed Morris near the doorway and tried to prevent him from going back 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-18 | July 20, 2015 Page 3 of 6

outside with the knife, but Morris pushed past his mother, knocking her to the 

ground and causing her to “bust[] [her] nose open.” Id. at 97. Morris then 

stabbed David in the abdomen and left the house in Dowdy’s car. After Morris

and Dowdy drove away from the house, Morris threw his GPS monitor out of 

the car. David was taken to the hospital but later died as a result of the stab 

wound. 

[6] The State charged Morris with murder, a felony, and Level 6 felony escape. 

The State also alleged that Morris was an habitual offender. Following a bench 

trial, the trial court found Morris guilty of voluntary manslaughter, as a lesser 

included offense of murder, and also guilty of escape. Morris then admitted to 

being an habitual offender. He received an aggregate sentence of twenty-six 

years imprisonment. This appeal followed. 

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[7] When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction, this court 

does not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. McHenry v. 

State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). When confronted with conflicting 

evidence, we consider it in the light most favorable to the conviction. Walker v. 

State, 998 N.E.2d 724, 726 (Ind. 2013). This court will affirm the conviction 

unless “no reasonable fact-finder” could have found the defendant guilty 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-18 | July 20, 2015 Page 4 of 6

II. Self-defense & Sufficiency of Evidence

[8] At trial, Morris claimed that he acted in self-defense, and on appeal, he argues 

that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut that claim. Selfdefense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Miller v. State, 720 

N.E.2d 696, 699 (Ind. 1999). Under Indiana law, 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 . . . .” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c). Self-defense is established if a 

defendant: “(1) was in a place where the defendant 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.” Brand v. State, 766 N.E.2d 772, 

777 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. When a defendant claims self-defense, 

the State has the burden of disproving at least one of the elements beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Id. The State may do so either by affirmatively rebutting the 

claim of self-defense or by simply relying on the sufficiency of evidence 

presented in its case in chief. Id.

[9] According to Morris, he first exited Dowdy’s vehicle to “diffuse the situation,” 

at which point David attacked Morris and the two tussled. Appellant’s Brief at 

4 (citing tr. at 139). Morris then entered the house to retrieve his GPS monitor 

and grabbed the knife because he feared for his safety. He claims that when he 

exited the house, David charged at him, and he accidentally stabbed David in 

the abdomen while trying only to keep him at bay. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-18 | July 20, 2015 Page 5 of 6

[10] While Morris’s version of events may support a self-defense claim, it is not a 

version that the fact-finder believed. See Fitzgerald v. State, 26 N.E.3d 105, 110 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (stating that the trial court, acting as fact-finder, is not 

required to believe a defendant’s self-serving testimony). Chantris testified that 

she stood near the front door and watched as David yelled at Morris and 

Dowdy while they were inside the car. Contrary to Morris’s version of events, 

Chantris testified that she did not witness a scuffle between Morris and David 

after Morris exited the car and ran to the house to get a knife and his GPS 

monitor. She attempted to stop Morris from leaving the house with the knife, 

but he shoved his way past her and stabbed David in the abdomen. 

[11] The evidence most favorable to the judgment lends itself to the inference that 

Morris was the initial aggressor, or at minimum, a willing participant in the 

violence. As such, the State succeeded in rebutting his self-defense claim. See

Brand, 766 N.E.2d at 777. 

[12] Even if David were the initial aggressor, Morris’s self-defense claim would still 

not prevail on appeal. In Hobson v. State, the victim was the initial aggressor. 

795 N.E.2d 1118, 1121-22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. However, the 

defendant chose to fight back, then grabbed a gun while separated from the 

victim and shot him. Id. This court held that under those circumstances, the

State presented sufficient evidence to rebut the defendant’s claim of self-defense. 

Id. at 1122. Morris’s act of running into the house to grab a knife is similar, 

and allows for the same result in this case. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-18 | July 20, 2015 Page 6 of 6

Conclusion

[13] Concluding the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Morris’s self-defense 

claim, we affirm his conviction. 

[14] Affirmed. 

May, J., and Mathias, J., concur.