Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A01-1612-CR-2723 | October 26, 2017 Page 1 of 11

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

Andrew J. Baldwin

Baldwin Kyle & Kamish, P.C.

Franklin, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Larry D. Allen

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Candelario Cruz-Trujillo,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 26, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

41A01-1612-CR-2723

Appeal from the Johnson Circuit 

Court

The Honorable K. Mark Loyd, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

41C01-1510-MR-2

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Candelario Cruz-Trujillo (“Candelario”) appeals his conviction for murder. In 

this appeal, Candelario claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A01-1612-CR-2723 | October 26, 2017 Page 2 of 11

refused to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter, voluntary 

manslaughter, and reckless homicide. 

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In the fall of 2014, Candelario discovered that his wife Isabel was having an 

affair with Miguel Hernandez (“Hernandez”). Subsequently, Isabel moved out,

and their children decided to stay with Candelario. In September 2015, 

Candelario and Isabel were having disagreements about where the children 

should live. During this time, Hernandez called Candelario and boasted, 

“[Candelario] was feeling like a big man taking away the children from 

[Isabel].” Tr. Vol. III, p. 55. This angered Candelario and on September 12, 

2015, he went to Hernandez’s apartment “to tell him not to mess with me, that 

if he wanted to say something, to tell me face to face, not to call me on the 

phone.” Id. Candelario waited for Hernandez at his apartment, and when 

Hernandez arrived, he spotted Candelario, quickly exited his car, and retreated 

into his apartment before there was a confrontation. 

[4] In the following weeks, Candelario noticed cars driving slowly by his home, 

and he was informed by a neighbor that a few strange men were walking near 

his property. Because of these events, Candelario illegally purchased a firearm. 

On September 29, Hernandez called Candelario and the following exchange 

took place: 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A01-1612-CR-2723 | October 26, 2017 Page 3 of 11

I asked him, what do you want? And he told me, are you scared? 

And I said, no, I’m not scared of nobody. I told him I want to see 

him - - I want to see you because I don’t want you to be going 

around my house. And he had fun. He told me that I was stupid, 

an asshole. I told him, you too. And I told him, if you want to 

say something, tell it face to face, don’t call me on the phone. 

And by now, I raised my voice, I was more upset. And I hang 

up.

Id. at 66 (errors in original). Later that same evening, Candelario went out to 

his truck and began drinking heavily. At some point during the night, 

Candelario severely cut his hand on a broken beer bottle. He went inside and

his oldest daughter helped him wrap his wound. His daughter also 

communicated with Isabel, encouraging her to come assist with Candelario. 

[5] Isabel arrived and attempted to take Candelario to the hospital. He refused and 

told her, “now I’m going to talk to Miguel.” Id. at 69. Isabel tried to block in 

Candelario’s car, but he maneuvered his truck around her vehicle and traveled 

to the Four Seasons restaurant, where Hernandez was employed as a cook, 

around 5:30 a.m. on September 30.

[6] Candelario pulled into the Four Seasons and waited in his truck for Hernandez 

to arrive. Soon after, Hernandez pulled in and Candelario exited his truck to 

confront him. Candelario told Hernandez he wanted to talk to him; however,

Hernandez began backing up and moving towards the restaurant entrance. 

Hernandez appeared to grab for something, and Candelario raised his gun and 

fired several shots at Hernandez. After Hernandez fell to the ground, 

Candelario shot Hernandez once more in the back of the head. Candelario went 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A01-1612-CR-2723 | October 26, 2017 Page 4 of 11

back to his truck and drove away. He was arrested without incident later that 

day. 

[7] The State charged Candelario with murder on October 7, 2015. A three-day 

jury trial commenced on September 12, 2016, during which the trial court 

found that the evidence did not warrant jury instructions on involuntary 

manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, and reckless homicide. The jury found 

Candelario guilty, and he was sentenced on November 7 to fifty-six years in the 

Indiana Department of Correction. Candelario now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[8] Candelario claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to 

instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, and 

reckless homicide as each is a lesser included offense of murder. Trial courts are 

provided broad discretion when instructing juries. Erlewein v. State, 775 N.E.2d 

712, 714 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. When determining whether to give 

a lesser included offense instruction, trial courts apply the three-part test our 

supreme court set out in Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1995). The 

supreme court succinctly explained this test in Wilson v. State:

The first two parts require the trial court to determine whether 

the offense is either inherently or factually included in the 

charged offense. If so, the trial court must determine whether 

there is a serious evidentiary dispute regarding any element that 

distinguishes the two offenses. . . . Where a trial court makes 

such a finding, its rejection of a tendered instruction is reviewed 

for an abuse of discretion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A01-1612-CR-2723 | October 26, 2017 Page 5 of 11

765 N.E.2d 1265, 1271 (Ind. 2002) (citations, quotation, and footnote omitted).

If the evidence in the record does not support giving an instruction on an 

inherently or factually included lesser offense, then the trial court should not 

give it to the jury. Wright, 658 N.E.2d at 567.

I. Involuntary Manslaughter

[9] Murder and involuntary manslaughter are distinguished by the defendant’s 

intent. Wilson, 765 N.E.2d at 1271. Murder requires an intent to kill, whereas 

involuntary manslaughter requires an intent to batter. Evans v. State, 727 N.E.2d 

1072, 1081 (Ind. 2000). Involuntary manslaughter is not an inherently lesser 

included offense of murder; however, it is a factually included lesser offense if 

the charging information alleges that a battery accomplished the killing. Norris 

v. State, 943 N.E.2d 362, 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. The charging 

information here alleges that “on or about September 30, 2015 in Johnson 

County, State of Indiana, Candelario Cruz-Trujillo did knowingly and/or 

intentionally kill another human being, to-wit: Miguel Hernandez.” Appellant’s 

App. p. 9. 

[10] Candelario does not dispute the fact that the charging information fails to allege

a battery, rather he argues that the term “charging instrument” as used by the 

Wright court should include both the charging information and the probable 

cause affidavit.1 He contends that because the probable cause affidavit indicates 

 

1 Candelario is not the first individual to present this argument, and our courts and legislature have 

consistently separated the probable cause affidavit from the charging instrument. E.g., Ind. Code § 35-34-1-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A01-1612-CR-2723 | October 26, 2017 Page 6 of 11

that Candelario committed battery by shooting Hernandez, then the jury should 

have been instructed on involuntary manslaughter. We disagree for two 

reasons. 

[11] First, the wording of the charging information foreclosed the opportunity for 

Candelario to seek an instruction on involuntary manslaughter. The Wright

court explained, “the State cannot draft an information that forecloses an 

instruction on an inherently lesser included offense of the crime charged . . . .”

658 N.E.2d at 569. However, “[w]hat is clear . . . is that the State may only 

foreclose instruction on a lesser offense that is not inherently included in the 

crime charged by omitting from a charging instrument factual allegations 

sufficient to charge the lesser offense.” Id. at 570. 

[12] Candelario was charged with “knowingly and/or intentionally” killing 

Hernandez. Appellant’s App. p. 9. There is no reference in the charging 

information to a battery that would provide a basis for an involuntary 

manslaughter instruction. Candelario notes that “the probable cause affidavit 

indicates that [Candelario] both attempted and committed the crime of battery 

by shooting Miguel Hernandez.” Appellant’s Br. at 18. Despite Candelario’s 

reliance on the probable cause affidavit, it was well within the State’s discretion 

 

2(a) (there is no requirement for a narrative probable cause affidavit in the statute specifying the contents of 

the charging information); Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2.4(a) (separately listing an “indictment, information, 

pleading, motion, petition, probable cause affidavit” when discussing verified documents); Schweitzer v. State, 

531 N.E.2d 1386, 1388 (Ind. 1989) (clarifying that “The probable cause affidavit relates to the pretrial 

detention of the defendant, not to the charging instrument.”); State v. Laker, 939 N.E.2d 1111, 1113 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2010) (identifying the different purposes for a charging instrument and the probable cause affidavit), 

trans. denied. We decline to disrupt this precedent here. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A01-1612-CR-2723 | October 26, 2017 Page 7 of 11

to draft the charging information in such a way as to foreclose the opportunity 

for Candelario to seek a conviction on involuntary manslaughter. See Champlain 

v. State, 681 N.E.2d 696, 702 (Ind. 1997) (observing that where the information 

alleged only that defendant “did knowingly kill another human being,” the 

information specifically did not assert a battery, and therefore, involuntary 

manslaughter was not a factually included lesser offense of murder). 

[13] Second, the record before us reveals no evidentiary dispute concerning whether 

Candelario intended to kill or batter Hernandez. We have previously held that 

“The intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner 

likely to cause death or great bodily injury, in addition to the nature of the 

attack and circumstances surrounding the crime.” Fuentes v. State, 10 N.E.3d 68, 

75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. Additionally, our supreme court has held 

that firing a weapon in the direction of a victim is substantial evidence from 

which a jury could infer intent to kill. Leon v. State, 525 N.E.2d 331, 332 (Ind. 

1988). 

[14] It is undisputed that Candelario raised his firearm and fired several shots at 

Hernandez from close range. After Hernandez fell, Candelario shot him once 

more in the head before fleeing. The evidence thus did not warrant an 

instruction on involuntary manslaughter, and the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion by refusing to give it. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A01-1612-CR-2723 | October 26, 2017 Page 8 of 11

II. Voluntary Manslaughter

[15] Murder and voluntary manslaughter are distinguished by evidence of sudden 

heat, “which is an evidentiary predicate that allows mitigation of a murder 

charge to voluntary manslaughter.” Washington v. State, 808 N.E.2d 617, 625 

(Ind. 2004). Our supreme court has characterized sudden heat “as anger, rage, 

resentment, or terror sufficient to obscure the reason of an ordinary person, 

preventing deliberation and premedication . . . and rendering a person 

incapable of cool reflection.” Id. at 626. Voluntary manslaughter is an 

inherently included offense of murder; however, an instruction on voluntary 

manslaughter is appropriate only “if there exists evidence of sufficient 

provocation to induce passion that renders a reasonable personal incapable of 

cool reflection.” Id.

[16] Candelario argues that “A reasonable person could conclude that [Candelario]

was terrified” and that “It is certainly reasonable that this terror could obscure 

the judgment of [Candelario] to the point that he even mistook keys for a hand 

gun.” Appellant’s Br. at 20. Candelario classifies the circumstances surrounding 

the shooting as “appreciable evidence of sudden heat” and thus claims the trial 

court abused its discretion when it did not instruct the jury on voluntary 

manslaughter. Id.

[17] To support his argument, Candelario cites to this court’s decision in Collins v. 

State, 966 N.E.2d 96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). In that case, Collins and her husband 

got into a heated argument. Id. at 100–01. The fight escalated quickly to the 

point where Collins’s husband grabbed a knife and slashed his wife, cutting her 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A01-1612-CR-2723 | October 26, 2017 Page 9 of 11

several times. Id. at 101. Collins broke away from her husband, ran upstairs to 

retrieve a gun, and shot and killed him. We held that the trial court properly 

instructed the jury on voluntary manslaughter because there was “sufficient 

evidence from which a jury could conclude that Collins acted in sudden heat.”

Id. at 103. We do not have similar evidence in the case before us. 

[18] The record here is filled with evidence that Candelario’s impetus to kill did not 

suddenly arise in response to a contemporaneous event. Suprenant v. State, 925 

N.E.2d 1280, 1284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. Candelario contemplated 

his actions for several hours before confronting Hernandez. After a sleepless 

night, he consciously drove his truck to wait for Hernandez at his place of 

employment. See Washington, 808 N.E.2d at 626 (holding that an instruction on 

voluntary manslaughter was not warranted where the evidence showed a degree 

of deliberation and cool reflection). When Hernandez saw Candelario, 

Hernandez began backing away to head into the restaurant. It was at this point 

that Candelario raised his gun and shot Hernandez multiple times. Once 

Hernandez fell, Candelario fired a final shot into the back of Hernandez’s head. 

[19] There is nothing in the record to indicate Candelario and Hernandez engaged 

in any type of confrontation prior to the shooting. While Candelario testified 

that he felt Hernandez could have had a gun, he also testified that he never saw 

a weapon. Further, Hernandez did not provoke Candelario prior to the 

shooting. See Suprenant, 925 N.E.2d at 1282–83 (explaining that the provocation 

required for voluntary manslaughter must be something more than mere words 

“sufficient to obscure the reason of an ordinary man.”). Simply put, there is no 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A01-1612-CR-2723 | October 26, 2017 Page 10 of 11

evidence in the record from which a reasonable person could conclude that 

Candelario acted in sudden heat. The trial court properly rejected Candelario’s 

voluntary manslaughter instruction. 

III. Reckless Homicide

[20] Finally, Candelario argues that the trial court should have given the jury an 

instruction on reckless homicide. Our supreme court has explained: 

[T]he only element distinguishing murder and reckless homicide 

is the defendant's state of mind: reckless homicide occurs when 

the defendant “recklessly” kills another human being, and 

murder occurs when the killing is done “knowingly” or 

“intentionally.” Reckless conduct is action taken in plain, 

conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm that might result 

and the disregard involves a substantial deviation from 

acceptable standards of conduct. By contrast, a person engages in 

conduct “knowingly” if the person is aware of a “high 

probability” that he or she is doing so. Thus, reckless homicide is 

an inherently included lesser offense of murder. The 

determinative issue here is whether the evidence produced a 

serious evidentiary dispute concerning [the defendant]’s state of 

mind that would justify giving the requested instruction.

Webb v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1103, 1106 (Ind. 2012) (citations and footnote 

omitted).

[21] Candelario reasons that “Confronting a man that is having an affair with your 

wife while intoxicated and armed with a revolver is reckless behavior and a 

genuine issue exists over whether the killing was premediated or reckless.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 22. We disagree. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A01-1612-CR-2723 | October 26, 2017 Page 11 of 11

[22] The State presented ample evidence that Candelario intentionally killed

Hernandez. Candelario pointed the gun at Hernandez and shot him multiple

times. Candelario also admitted that he shot Hernandez in the head after

Hernandez fell to the ground. Candelario testified:

I’m going to talk to somebody, and if he resists me, I had the 

gun, and it was to shoot. It was to use it. I’m going to see him. 

But if he wants to fight with me, shoot, I can use the gun. That’s 

why I had it, to shoot. 

Tr. Vol. III, p. 88. The evidence here does not produce an evidentiary dispute 

concerning whether Candelario acted knowingly or recklessly. See Newman v. 

State, 751 N.E.2d 265, 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (instruction on reckless 

homicide was not warranted where defendant admitted to pointing and firing a 

gun at the victim), trans. denied. Therefore, the trial court properly rejected 

Candelario’s reckless homicide instruction.

Conclusion

[23] Under these facts and circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion

when it refused to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter, voluntary

manslaughter, and reckless homicide.

[24] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.