Case Number: 71A03-1707-CR-1722

Judge: Cale J. Bradford

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Plaintiff's Attorney: Caroline G. Templeton
Deputy Attorney General

Defendant's Attorney: Sean P. Hilgendorf

Description: On the evening of May 24, 2016, nineteen-year-old Barksdale was riding his
bicycle northbound along Wilber Street in South Bend. While riding his
bicycle, he observed a car traveling southbound on Wilber Street. Barksdale
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1707-CR-1722 | December 15, 2017 Page 3 of 7

noticed that Tyaire Bryson was driving the car, Estelle was sitting in the front
passenger seat, and Santori Dorsey was sitting in the backseat. Barksdale
recognized the three men because they had all attended the same middle school.
[5] Upon seeing Dorsey, Barksdale made a hand gesture which communicated his
disrespect for the Gangster Disciples gang. Barksdale believed that Dorsey was
a member of Four Corner Hustler, a rival gang of the Gangster Disciples gang,
and thought “it was something that they two [of them] would agree on[.]” Tr.
Vol. II, p. 62. Barksdale then continued on his way until “something told [him]
to turn around.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 63.
[6] When he turned around, Barksdale noticed that the car carrying Bryson,
Estelle, and Dorsey had changed direction and was now following him. Bryson
pulled up alongside Barksdale and, through the open front passenger-side
window, asked Barskdale “[w]hat did you say?” Tr. Vol. II, p. 63. In reply,
Barksdale “dropped [the disrespectful sign] again.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 64. Estelle
then fired three shots at Barksdale before Bryson drove away from the scene.
[7] Soon thereafter, South Bend Police Officer Jarvier Bourne was dispatched to
the scene of the shooting. By the time Officer Bourne arrived at the scene, a
crowd had gathered around Barksdale, who was unconscious. Officer Bourne
and others were eventually able to resuscitate Barksdale. After being
resuscitated but before being transported to the hospital, Barksdale identified
Estelle and Bryson as the responsible parties.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1707-CR-1722 | December 15, 2017 Page 4 of 7

[8] Later that evening, Elkhart Police located the car that Bryson had been driving.
Estelle’s school work was found in the car. In addition, two bullet casings were
recovered from the car. The first was “located on the floorboard of the front
passenger seat.” Tr. Vol. III, p. 58. The second was recovered from the track
of the passenger seat. Investigating officers also recovered a third bullet casing
from the scene of the shooting.
[9] A few weeks later, on June 10, 2016, officers recovered a handgun from a car in
which Dorsey was riding. Subsequent testing of the handgun revealed that the
handgun was the gun that had been used in the May 24, 2016 shooting.
[10] In light of certain social media posts which depicted Estelle displaying the
Gangster Disciples hand signal, Jennica Benitez believed that Estelle was a
member of the gang. At some point after the shooting, Benitez, who had
previously dated Estelle, called Estelle. During their ensuing conversation,
Benitez asked Estelle “why he was out here shooting people[.]” Tr. Vol. III, p.
15. Estelle replied that Barksdale had indicated disrespect for the Gangster
Disciples by dropping the gang’s sign. Estelle also indicated that Barksdale
“looked like he was fix’n to grab something from his waist so then [I] shot
him.” Tr. Vol. III, p. 15.
[11] Due to the severity of his injuries, Barksdale remained hospitalized for just over
one month. After being admitted to the hospital, Barksdale was placed in the
Intensive Care Unit. He initially had to be fed through a tube because he could
not eat. He suffered kidney failure and required dialysis and blood transfusions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1707-CR-1722 | December 15, 2017 Page 5 of 7

He also required a bowel reconstruction surgery. In addition, because a bullet
hit the main artery in his leg, Barksdale’s left leg had to be amputated. Also, as
of the date that Barksdale testified at Estelle’s trial, there was still a bullet
lodged in his pelvis.
[12] On July 28, 2016, the State charged Estelle with one count of Level 3 felony
aggravated battery and one count of Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly
weapon. A jury trial commenced on May 30, 2017. During trial, Barksdale
testified that he was “110 percent” sure that Estelle was the individual who had
shot him. Tr. Vol. II, p. 73. Also during trial, Benitez testified that Estelle had
admitted to her that he had shot Barksdale. On June 1, 2017, the jury found
Estelle guilty as charged. The trial court entered a judgment of conviction on
the Level 3 felony aggravated battery charge. However, due to double jeopardy
concerns, the trial court dismissed the Level 5 battery charge. On July 12,
2017, the trial court sentenced Estelle to a twelve-year executed term of
imprisonment. This appeal follows. Estelle contends that the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction for
Level 3 felony aggravated battery. Specifically, Estelle argues that the evidence
is insufficient to prove that he was the individual who shot Barksdale.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1707-CR-1722 | December 15, 2017 Page 6 of 7

witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (citations, emphasis, and
quotations omitted). “In essence, we assess only whether the verdict could be
reached based on reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence
presented.” Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind. 2012) (emphasis in
original). Upon review, appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or assess
the credibility of the witnesses. Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433, 435 (Ind.
2002).
[14] In order to prove that Estelle committed Level 3 felony aggravated battery, the
State was required to prove that Estelle “knowingly or intentionally inflict[ed]
injury on a person that create[d] a substantial risk of death or cause[d] …
protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.”
Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.5. Estelle does not dispute on appeal that Barksdale was
shot by a gun or that as a result of being shot, Barksdale suffered loss of a bodily
organ as his left leg had to be amputated. Estelle merely challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence to prove his identity as the shooter.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1707-CR-1722 | December 15, 2017 Page 7 of 7

[15] Review of the record reveals that Barksdale has consistently identified Estelle as
the shooter. On the night of the shooting, after Officer Bourne had arrived on
the scene and resuscitated Barksdale, Barksdale indicated that Estelle and
Bryson had “done this to him.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 33. At trial, Barksdale
consistently identified Estelle as the shooter, stating that he was “110 percent”
sure that Estelle was the person who shot him. Tr. Vol. II, p. 73. In addition to
Barksdale’s identification of Estelle as the shooter, Estelle admitted to Benitez
that he had shot Barksdale.
[16] Upon review, we conclude that the testimony of Officer Bourne, Barksdale, and
Benitez is sufficient to sustain the jury’s determination that Estelle was the
individual who shot Barksdale. Estelle’s argument to the contrary amounts to
nothing more than an invitation for this court to reweigh the evidence, which
we will not do. See Stewart, 768 N.E.2d 433, 435. Accordingly, we affirm
Estelle’s conviction for Level 3 aggravated battery.

Outcome: The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: