Depriest v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Depriest’s convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove he intentionally shot Williams and that the circumstantial-evidence statute did not govern because eyewitness testimony supplied direct evidence. It also held that counsel was not ineffective for declining to seek pretrial self-defense immunity because the decision was reasonable and Depriest could not show prejudice. Assuming the refusal to give a defense-of-others instruction was error, the court held that any error was harmless because the evidence supporting that theory was exceedingly slight.