Jump To

Top Caption Disposition [Combined Opinion

                  by Judge Felix](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10804907/gregory-c-guilfoyle-v-state-of-indiana/about:blank#o1) The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Gregory C. Guilfoyle v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25A-CR-01406
• Judges: Vaidik, Felix, Tavitas

• Disposition: Remanded and Affirmed

• Opinion

• Authorities (14)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (17.4K)

• PDF

Disposition

Remanded and Affirmed

Combined Opinion

                        by Judge Felix

FILED
Mar 06 2026, 9:04 am

CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Gregory C. Guilfoyle,
Appellant-Defendant

v.

State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff

March 6, 2026
Court of Appeals Case No.
25A-CR-1406
Appeal from the Franklin Circuit Court
The Honorable Brian D. Hill, Special Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
24C01-2405-F1-000269

Opinion by Judge Felix
Chief Judge Tavitas and Judge Vaidik concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 1 of 28
Felix, Judge.

Statement of the Case
[1] During a severe snowstorm with below-zero wind chills, Gregory Guilfoyle

shot his wife Hannah Guilfoyle, dragged her outside their home, and left her for

dead. Guilfoyle then left on foot, carrying his and Hannah’s young child.

When Franklin County Sheriff’s Deputy Arin Bowers encountered them in the

middle of a snowy road and tried to help, Guilfoyle shot Deputy Bowers. Both

Hannah and Deputy Bowers survived. Four mental health experts examined

Guilfoyle to determine his sanity; only the State’s expert found him to be sane

at the time he committed the offenses. A jury found Guilfoyle guilty but

mentally ill of eight offenses, and he was sentenced to a near-maximum

sentence of 100 years in prison. Guilfoyle now appeals and raises two issues for

our review:

1. Whether Guilfoyle presented sufficient evidence to prove he was not guilty by reason of insanity; and
2. Whether Guilfoyle’s sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

[2] We affirm and remand with instructions.

Facts and Procedural History
Background

[3] We start our review with events prior to the offenses because those events are

relevant to both Guilfoyle’s appellate claims. Guilfoyle and Hannah met in

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 2 of 28
2019 and had their first child together, R.G. (“Child”), in January 2021. In

2022, Guilfoyle, Hannah, and Child lived together in Franklin County,

Indiana.

[4] On August 15, 2022, Guilfoyle went to a local emergency room for alcohol

withdrawal symptoms. Guilfoyle reported to the staff that he “has a

longstanding history with alcohol abuse,” “this is the 1st time that he has

actually [sought] help,” he “believes” he has “posttraumatic stress disorder

from when he was a police officer,” and he quit being an officer in 2016. Tr.

Vol. XI at 82. Guilfoyle denied “any history of hallucinations visual or

auditory,” but he did report feeling “very anxious” and “very jittery.” Id. Staff

provided Guilfoyle with “resources for outpatient follow-up,” id. at 83, and a

prescription for Zoloft.

[5] On October 2, Guilfoyle came home from his bachelor party drunk, prompting

Hannah to call his parents for help. When they arrived, they observed holes in

the walls. Guilfoyle was angry and throwing things, and he hit his mother in

the face with a kitchen drawer—“Her face [was] busted up pretty good,” State’s

Ex. 30 at 00:30–00:32. 1 Guilfoyle’s father ended up taking away Guilfoyle’s

gun because he “was concerned” Guilfoyle would “hurt[] himself.” Tr. Vol.

VIII at 5. On October 8, 2022, Hannah and Guilfoyle married. In late

1
In connection with this incident, under Cause 24C02-2210-CM-000728, Guilfoyle was charged with
domestic battery as a Class A misdemeanor. The charge was later amended to criminal recklessness as a
Class B misdemeanor before being dismissed.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 3 of 28
November or early December, Guilfoyle’s father returned the gun to Guilfoyle,

believing Guilfoyle “seemed pretty down to earth,” “things . . . seemed to have

settled out,” and Guilfoyle needed a weapon to protect his family. Id. at 6.

[6] On November 27, Hannah and Guilfoyle officially formed their jointly owned

company Gilco Construction, LLC. In December, Hannah and Guilfoyle were

fighting “a lot . . . about money, about sex, about everything. Just day-to-day

arguments, anything to fight about.” Tr. Vol. VI at 167. In early December,

Guilfoyle and Hannah attended a business event in Ohio. While there, Hannah

“held [Guilfoyle’s] hand, and he didn’t like that.” Id. at 170. When the event

“broke for lunch” and the couple returned to their car, Guilfoyle “started

belittling [Hannah], screaming at [her], cussing, hitting the center console, in

[her] face, screaming at [her], arguing with [her]. . . . He was just very upset

and very belligerent.” Id. Also in December, Hannah learned and told

Guilfoyle that she was pregnant with their second child. Hannah “was

probably only a couple weeks” along, and Guilfoyle “was very excited and

happy about” the pregnancy. Id. at 171.

The Shootings & Immediate Aftermath

[7] On the morning of December 22, Guilfoyle told Hannah “that he was going to

get his hair cut and that he was going to do a bid down the street” for the

construction company. Tr. Vol. VI at 171. That evening, it was snowing

heavily—approximately one inch every “40 minutes to an hour”—and “with

the wind chill, it was probably close” to -10 degrees. Id. at 69. Guilfoyle,

Hannah, and Child were all in their home. Child “was sleeping in her crib,”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 4 of 28
and Hannah and Guilfoyle were sitting on the couch. Id. at 172. Hannah “was

about to get up and make [Guilfoyle’s] birthday cake” when Guilfoyle got up

from the couch. Id. Hannah thought Guilfoyle “was going to the bathroom,”

but then he remotely started his truck and “walked down the hallway with

[Child] in his arms.” Id. “[T]hat’s when [Guilfoyle] started belittling [Hannah],

arguing with [her], cussing at [her].” Id. Guilfoyle told Hannah that she “was a

bad mom and he was going to kill” Child. Id. The last thing Hannah

remembers “is the door being open and that’s it.” Id.

[8] According to Guilfoyle, he shot Hannah “point-blank to the head” while “she

was standing up,” State’s Ex. 26 at 08:58–09:04, inside the house. Guilfoyle

then “dragged [Hannah] outside,” id. at 09:26–09:28; retrieved Child from her

crib; locked the front door; and walked right by Hannah with Child in his arms.

Guilfoyle knew that Hannah “would not survive” the gunshot wound to her

head. Id. at 02:04–2:10. Guilfoyle tried to leave in his truck, but it “shut

down,” id. at 05:35–05:36, so he started walking to his father’s house.

[9] At approximately 12:00 a.m. on December 23, Indiana Department of

Transportation employee Timothy Henry was plowing snow near the

intersection of U.S. 52 and State Road 1 when he saw “a man . . . in the middle

of the road.” Tr. Vol. VI at 69. Once the man was in Henry’s headlights,

Henry noticed that he was not dressed in winter clothes and had “a baby in

[his] left arm,” who was also not dressed for the weather. Id. at 70. Henry

caused law enforcement to be notified.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 5 of 28
[10] Deputy Bowers responded in a marked police vehicle to the location where

Henry had been. Deputy Bowers located the man walking in the middle of

State Road 1 and recognized him as Guilfoyle. Deputy Bowers got out of his

vehicle and asked Guilfoyle what was going on; Guilfoyle “just began asking if

[Deputy Bowers] would give him a ride to his dad’s,” Tr. Vol. VI at 77. Deputy

Bowers “told [Guilfoyle that he would] be happy to give him a ride . . . once

[he] figured out what was going on.” Id. Deputy Bowers then opened the rear

passenger door of his vehicle and asked Guilfoyle to put Child in the back seat

to “get warm.” Id. Guilfoyle refused and “began to walk away.” Id. Deputy

Bowers followed him. Just a few seconds later, Guilfoyle turned around, drew

a gun with his right hand—he was still carrying Child with his left hand—and

pointed the gun directly at Deputy Bowers. Immediately, Deputy Bowers drew

his own weapon and shot at Guilfoyle, and a shootout ensued.

[11] When the two were “between 15 and 25 feet” away from one another, Tr. Vol.

VI at 81, Guilfoyle shot Deputy Bowers in his bulletproof vest, “basically center

mass on [his] chest, just on [his] left pectoral,” id. at 80. While shooting at

Deputy Bowers, Guilfoyle fell to the ground, losing his grip on both the gun

and Child. Concerned that Guilfoyle “was going to grab the gun and pull

[Child] back into the mix,” id. at 81, Deputy Bowers shot at Guilfoyle again,

causing Guilfoyle to fall on his back. Deputy Bowers ordered Guilfoyle to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 6 of 28
“drop the gun,” State’s Ex. 1-1 at 08:43–08:45, 2 and Guilfoyle put his hands up.

Deputy Bowers immediately grabbed Child and ensured she was physically

unharmed. While Deputy Bowers was checking on Child, other law

enforcement officers began arriving on scene. From the time Deputy Bowers

found Guilfoyle in the middle of the road to the time he secured Child, less than

two minutes elapsed.

[12] After securing Guilfoyle in handcuffs, Deputy Bowers and other officers

rendered aid to Guilfoyle, whom Deputy Bowers had shot in the torso and

groin. The officers did not discover the wound to Guilfoyle’s groin until several

minutes after it occurred, and he was “bleeding profus[]ely” from that injury,

Tr. Vol. VI at 117. The officers were able to slow but not stop the bleeding.

[13] While the officers were rendering aid to Guilfoyle, he was initially cursing at

them. Approximately nine minutes after the shooting and after the officers had

begun to slow the bleeding from Guilfoyle’s groin wound, Guilfoyle said,

“Forgive him father. Forgive him.” State’s Ex. 6 at 08:39–8:42. Thinking

Guilfoyle was talking to him, Deputy Bowers responded, “I forgive you . . . .”

Id. at 08:52–08:54. Guilfoyle told Deputy Bowers, “I don’t give a f[*]ck if you

forgive me.” Id. at 08:54–08:56. Shortly thereafter, Guilfoyle said, “You will

all burn for eternity. You will burn for eternity while I f[*]ck all your wives,

2
State’s Ex. 1 contains two separate video files: (1) one video file from Deputy Bowers’s dashboard camera
that was pointed toward the front of his vehicle and (2) one video file from Deputy Bowers’s interior car
camera that was pointed toward the back seat of his vehicle. For ease of reference, we cite to the first video
as “State’s Ex. 1-1,” and we cite to the second video as “State’s Ex. 1-2.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 7 of 28
you little bitches.” State’s Ex. 6 at 10:24–10:37. One of the officers told

Guilfoyle, “This ain’t you.” Id. at 10:41–10:43. Guilfoyle responded, “Wait ‘til

God gets here.” Id. at 10:43–10:45. After mentioning something about his

father and a cartel, Guilfoyle told the officers, “I know where all you guys live.

I’m CIA,” id. at 11:07–11:10. Approximately 13 minutes after the shooting,

Guilfoyle instructed the officers, “Get my daughter home and take me to jail.”

State’s Ex. 1-1 at 21:45–21:47; State’s Ex. 1-2 at 21:40–21:42. Guilfoyle also

told officers that his “dad is in the f[]cking mob, motherf[]ckers.” State’s Ex.

6 at 15:39–15:42.

[14] An ambulance arrived to transport Guilfoyle to the hospital, and while in route,

Guilfoyle attempted to choke an EMT. The EMT believed Guilfoyle “was in

hypovolemic shock due to more than likely blood loss.” Tr. Vol. VI at 233. An

hour after arriving at a local emergency room and while still undergoing

treatment, Guilfoyle asked for his lawyer. When no one responded to him,

Guilfoyle stated, “You all are going to burn in f[*]cking hell.” State’s Ex. 27 at

1:02:52–1:02:58. A nurse asked him why, and Guilfoyle responded, “Because

you’re not helping.” Id. at 1:02:59–1:03:01. Guilfoyle then told the people in

the room, “For eternity, you’ll burn in hell.” Id. at 1:03:28–1:03:30. For

several minutes thereafter, Guilfoyle continued periodically making threats and

biblical references. A while later, Guilfoyle stated, “I just shot my wife in the

f[*]cking head.” Id. at 1:14:39–1:14:44.

[15] Meanwhile, Child was taken to the Franklin County Security Center; an

Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) employee picked her up from

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 8 of 28
there and transported her to the hospital because Child was still “shaking and

shivering” and she had “a huge red spot” on one of her legs, Tr. Vol. VI at 124.

Throughout all these events, Child was dressed in only a long sleeve pajama top

and pajama pants; she did not have on socks, shoes, a coat, a hat, or any other

weather-appropriate clothing. When Child was evaluated at a local hospital—

approximately 2 hours after law enforcement first contacted DCS—her body

temperature was 93 degrees. The red spot on Child’s leg was determined to be

“early onset . . . frostbite.” Id. at 126. Child did not sustain any lasting physical

injuries from the incident.

[16] While Guilfoyle was taken to the hospital and Child was taken to the Security

Center, Franklin County Sheriff’s Sergeant Kyle Hartman and Deputy Tyler

Ford went to do a welfare check on Hannah. As they approached Hannah and

Guilfoyle’s house, Sergeant Hartman and Deputy Ford noticed a pickup truck

parked but running in the backyard and a person—Hannah—lying in the front

yard. Hannah “was kind of just like a bloody icicle. Everything appeared to be

frozen. Her eyes could follow [Sergeant Hartman]. She couldn’t really talk. . .

. Her hair was all matted and bloody.” Tr. Vol. VI at 143–44. Hannah was

wearing “night clothes” that “had been kind of pulled up. Her feet, legs, her

back, midsection, and neck, shoulder area were exposed to the elements. [S]he

had frostbite starting to form on her feet. [T]here was blood splatter or a blood

pooling near the back of her head.” Id. at 197. Hannah had a bullet entry

wound behind her right ear and an exit wound toward the back of her head.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 9 of 28
[17] Hannah survived, but she lost her pregnancy and a fallopian tube, she lost the

tips of five of her toes from frostbite, she has a bald spot on the back of her head

from frostbite, she has a permanent shunt in her head, she aspirates when she

eats and drinks, the right side of her body is weak, she has nerve damage in her

right hand, and she has diminished use of her right eye. Hannah did not return

home until May 2023.

[18] Guilfoyle was paralyzed from the chest down as a result of his injuries. While

in the hospital, Guilfoyle was also treated for psychosis. One of Guilfoyle’s

doctors noted that it was “[u]nusual” for a 31-year-old man to suddenly develop

a psychotic disorder “without” an “obvious substance use disorder.” Tr. Vol.

XI at 197; see also Tr. Vol. VII at 163. The same doctor noted that Guilfoyle’s

family reported he “may have had some [symptoms] since October,” but this

“chronology of persistent manic and psychotic symptoms worsening over 3

months would be unusual for a primary bipolar mania episode.” Tr. Vol. XI at

1. By the time he was discharged in mid-January 2023, doctors were not able

to definitively diagnose Guilfoyle, but they believed he had “[m]ania with

psychotic features,” which they thought might have been complicated by his

history of PTSD. Tr. Vol. XI at 223.

[19] When interviewed by the Indiana State Police, Deputy Bowers stated that

Guilfoyle “was off his baseline from what [he] had seen [from] him in the past.”

Tr. Vol. VI at 104. Within the first few days of being hospitalized, Guilfoyle

told his pastor and his pastor’s wife that he shot Hannah but “it wasn’t Hannah

. . . . The face kind of looked like her, but it wasn’t because she had black

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 10 of 28
wings. And before I shot, I looked down at [Child] and she smiled at me and I

knew that it was okay.” Tr. Vol. VIII at 50.

[20] On December 27, Guilfoyle was interviewed by the Indiana State Police.

When asked about the incident, Guilfoyle stated, “Well, I had mental break. I

saw a demon in my wife. Saint Michael was my protector that day.” State’s

Ex. 26 at 01:16–01:34. Guilfoyle claimed that Hannah “wouldn’t let me leave,

so I shot her.” State’s Ex. 26 at 01:56–01:59. Guilfoyle also asserted that he

was trying to put their cell phones outside and Hannah would not let him:

She wouldn’t -- she wouldn’t put them outside. I kept trying to
tell her to put them outside, and she would not let go of them.
And I -- I said, “Well, we’ll put them in the garage, in my truck.”
And she would not do that. She wouldn’t -- and I tried to take it
from her gently and she would not do that, she just stood in front
of the door. I said, “You’re giving me no choice.” And then --
and she was -- I don’t know how I survived. It’s so crazy man.

Id. at 06:55–07:17. Guilfoyle explained that he “felt like, um, people could

enter my house or see what’s going on in my house with those like, um, Garden

of Eden type stuff and -- . . . you know, I grew up back the Old Testament when

-- when Adam didn’t refuse his wife, that’s when God punished him, and I

thought that’s what he was testing me on.” Id. at 07:22–07:51. Guilfoyle later

elaborated that he

thought people were trying to have sex with me in the house, and
I thought it was a blackmail tactic or power tactic and . . . I kept
asking her. I wanted to try to talk to her about it. . . . [S]he got
really defensive. I said, “Man, I just can’t in the house.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 11 of 28
Id. at 10:07–10:36.

[21] When describing his encounter with Deputy Bowers, Guilfoyle stated,

I had CIA intelligence that there was people . . . taking kids in
the area, and based on my Fourth Amendment rights, I knew
that the -- the officer I spoke to did not know what was going on
at the time, came up. I felt -- like I tried to walk away. I said,
“No” -- he said, “You need help?” I said, “No.” And, um, he
was trying to get me to go in the car. . . . I just pulled out my
gun. “I’m not getting in the car. You’re not taking my baby
from me.” And then I got shot . . . . I didn’t want to hurt the
man, I just didn’t want -- I didn’t want anybody to take my --
hurt my family on my watch.

State’s Ex. 26 at 02:33–03:41. Guilfoyle also told the officers that he has

“PTSD really bad,” “was a severe alcoholic,” and “quit drinking after [his]

bachelor party.” Id. at 12:32–12:39.

Charges, Trial, & Sentencing

[22] The State charged Guilfoyle with eight offenses: two counts of attempted

murder as Level 1 felonies, one count of aggravated battery as a Level 3 felony,

one count of domestic battery as a Level 5 felony, one count of battery with a

deadly weapon as a Level 5 felony, one count of pointing a firearm as a Level 6

felony, and two counts of neglect of a dependent as Level 6 felonies. The State

also alleged Guilfoyle used a firearm in committing both attempted murders

and one of the neglect offenses.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 12 of 28
[23] Guilfoyle asserted an insanity defense. At trial, four mental health experts

testified. The two court-appointed experts opined that Guilfoyle was unable to

appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct when he committed his offenses.

Guilfoyle’s expert agreed. However, the State’s expert opined that Guilfoyle

was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of his

offenses. Next, we review each expert’s opinion in more detail.

[24] Doctor Don Olive, one of the court-appointed experts, concluded that at the

time of the offenses, Guilfoyle “was suffering from . . . Bipolar I disorder, with

features of mania and psychosis.” 3 Tr. Vol. IX at 84. Doctor Olive opined that

“based upon his mental disease, Mr. Guilfoyle was unable to appreciate the

wrongfulness of his conduct at the time in question.” Id. at 85. Doctor Olive

“did not suspect malingering” 4 when he interviewed Guilfoyle, so he did not

test for it. Id. at 99. Further, Doctor Olive testified that Guilfoyle has had

“problems in the past with controlling his anger,” is “a very insecure person,”

and has engaged in “some self-destructive behavior” such as “alcohol abuse and

the like.” Id. at 117. Doctor Olive also stated that if Guilfoyle was acting

normally as others described him, that “could cast doubt on what exactly he

was experiencing or not experiencing that day,” id. at 106, and agreed that

3
Doctor Olive also diagnosed Guilfoyle with PTSD based on Guilfoyle’s self-reported experiences as a law
enforcement officer, but Doctor Olive did not believe there was a link between Guilfoyle’s PTSD and his
offenses.
4
“Malingering” is a term “use[d] to describe a person that is maybe embellishing or exaggerating psychiatric
symptoms for secondary gain.” Tr. Vol. IX at 7. For instance, in a criminal case, a defendant may
“embellish symptoms or even sometimes make up symptoms in order to get a lighter sentence.” Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 13 of 28
believing Hannah’s version of events would cast doubt on his analysis of

Guilfoyle’s mental state.

[25] Doctor George Parker, the other court-appointed expert, opined in his first

report that Guilfoyle met the criteria for insanity when he shot Hannah but

regained his sanity before shooting Deputy Bowers. According to Doctor

Parker, this opinion was “based on incomplete data.” Tr. Vol. IX at 159. After

receiving more information—such as videos, more complete post-shooting

hospital records, and a second interview with Guilfoyle—Doctor Parker

diagnosed Guilfoyle with “bipolar disorder type 1,” Tr. Vol. IX at 139, and

concluded that “at the time of the alleged offenses, [Guilfoyle] was in a manic

and psychotic episode,” id. at 140. In his second report and at trial, Doctor

Parker opined that Guilfoyle “did not appreciate the wrong[fulness] of his

actions at the time of the alleged offenses due to his mental disease.” Id. As for

the statements Guilfoyle made after shooting Deputy Bowers, Doctor Parker

testified that Guilfoyle was in a state of shock and was “deeper in shock” when

he arrived at the first hospital—“the trauma of the shooting and the blood loss

and then the recovery, that’s going to contribute to his mental state.” Id. at 152.

Nonetheless, Doctor Parker believed there was “pretty clear evidence” that

Guilfoyle was “psychotic throughout this whole episode, before, during, and

after.” Id. Doctor Parker “did not do a formal test of malingering, but [he] saw

no evidence that Mr. Guilfoyle was malingering his symptoms in either of the

interviews.” Id. at 150.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 14 of 28
[26] Guilfoyle’s expert, Doctor Marc Martinez, concluded that at the time of the

offenses, Guilfoyle was suffering from Bipolar I disorder with psychotic

features, post-traumatic stress disorder, and alcohol use disorder in early

remission. Doctor Martinez ruled out hypovolemic shock and Guilfoyle’s

marijuana use as causes of his behavior. According to Doctor Martinez, “Even

assuming [Guilfoyle had] fleeting moments of . . . appreciation of the illegality

of his actions, there is contrary evidence that he was operating under a moral

imperative to protect his family based on delusional beliefs.” Tr. Vol. VIII at

1. Doctor Martinez opined that Guilfoyle “had prominent psychotic

symptoms” at the time he committed his offenses, id. at 95, and was not able to

appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct.

[27] The State’s expert, Doctor Edward Connor, testified that anything Guilfoyle

said “after the time he was shot” carried little weight “because that could be a

reaction to a near death experience.” Tr. Vol. IX at 23. Doctor Connor

administered a malingering test to Guilfoyle, and Guilfoyle scored 14 points—

the cut off for determining whether a person is malingering. Doctor Connor

concluded that Guilfoyle exhibited “some indications of malingering,” which

made Doctor Connor “suspicious that perhaps [Guilfoyle] was exaggerating.”

Id. at 19. According to Doctor Connor, Guilfoyle’s hallucinations were

“atypical” because most people “see images of a person” and not “distorted

figures.” Id. Similarly, “a visual hallucination [is typically] not within reach,”

yet Hannah was within Guilfoyle’s reach, as demonstrated by his statement that

he shot her at point blank range. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 15 of 28
[28] Doctor Connor opined that Guilfoyle was suffering from “some level of mental

illness” when committing his offenses, Tr. Vol. IX at 38, but he was not

suffering from “a severe psychosis,” id. at 39, and was “able to make rational

decisions and distinguish between right and wrong at the time of the offense,”

id. at 15. Doctor Connor originally reached this conclusion but briefly changed

it to align with the three other experts after receiving more information, namely,

more medical records, deposition transcripts, and text messages. However,

after interviewing Hannah, Doctor Connor reverted to his original conclusion—

Guilfoyle was not insane at the time of the offenses.

[29] In addition to expert testimony regarding Guilfoyle’s sanity, the jury also heard

from lay witnesses who described Guilfoyle’s behavior in the days and weeks

prior to the offenses. Amy Stringer, the wife of Guilfoyle’s pastor, testified that

at a bible study in December, Guilfoyle stepped out to take a phone call, and

when he came back in the room, he stated, “I think I got this deal and I’m

going to buy all this farm for everybody and I’m going to donate money to

church and I got a $4 million deal.” Tr. Vol. VIII at 44. Stringer said she “had

never seen [Guilfoyle] act like that or talk like that”—he was “talking like really

fast and saying all this bizarre stuff about paying everybody all this money and

buying all this farm land.” Id. Conversely, one of Guilfoyle’s neighbors

testified that he met with Guilfoyle on December 17, 2022, regarding “some

excavation work,” Tr. Vol. VIII at 164, and Guilfoyle “was professional, kind,

considerate, [and] listened well,” id. at 165. Similarly, one of Guilfoyle’s

employees was with him in the days leading up to the shootings and nothing

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 16 of 28
appeared out of the ordinary, although Guilfoyle “seemed kind of like half

deflated” and “tired,” id. at 173.

[30] Several witnesses testified that Guilfoyle recounted various events he

experienced while working as a law enforcement officer for the Greenhills

Police Department (“GPD”) in Ohio, which he claimed caused him to suffer

from PTSD. Witnesses from GPD and other relevant police departments

minimized the extent of Guilfoyle’s involvement in one of these events and

alleged that the other events did not happen at all. There was also evidence that

Guilfoyle studied psychology and criminal justice in college.

[31] The jury found Guilfoyle guilty but mentally ill (“GBMI”) on all counts as

charged. Guilfoyle admitted to using a firearm in his attempted murder of

Hannah, and the other two firearm enhancements were dismissed. On double

jeopardy concerns, the trial court vacated Guilfoyle’s convictions for all three

battery counts and the pointing a firearm count—leaving only the two

attempted murder convictions, the two neglect convictions, and the firearm

enhancement. The trial court sentenced Guilfoyle to a total of 100 years of

incarceration. This appeal ensued. 5

5
On February 5, 2026, we held oral argument in this case at Indiana State University in Terre Haute,
Indiana. We thank all those in attendance for their attentiveness and hospitality, and we thank counsel for
both parties for the quality of their advocacy.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 17 of 28
Discussion and Decision
1. The Jury Did Not Err by Rejecting Guilfoyle’s Insanity Defense

[32] Because Guilfoyle raised an insanity defense, the jury had four options for its

verdict: (1) guilty, (2) not guilty, (3) “not responsible by reason of insanity at

the time of the crime,” or (4) “guilty but mentally ill at the time of the crime.”

Ind. Code § 35-36-2-3. The jury found Guilfoyle was guilty but mentally ill,

thereby rejecting his insanity defense. On appeal, Guilfoyle claims he presented

sufficient evidence to support his insanity defense such that the jury should

have found him not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”). 6

[33] We will affirm a jury’s verdict that rejected the insanity defense “unless ‘the

evidence is without conflict and leads only to the conclusion that the defendant

was insane when the crime was committed.’” Payne v. State, 144 N.E.3d 706,

709 (Ind. 2020) (emphases added) (quoting Barcroft v. State, 111 N.E.3d 997,

1002 (Ind. 2018)). We “consider only the evidence most favorable to” the

verdict, and we neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess witness credibility.

Id. at 709–10 (quoting Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. 2004)).

We give “substantial deference” to “the factfinder’s determination that a

defendant was not insane at the time of the offense.” Id. at 710 (internal

quotation marks omitted) (quoting Barcroft, 111 N.E.3d at 1002). Nevertheless,

6
Guilfoyle does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Appellant’s Br. at
16.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 18 of 28
“the inferences drawn by the factfinder from the evidence at trial must be

‘reasonable and logical.’” Id. (quoting Thompson, 804 N.E.2d at 1149).

[34] An alternative to an insanity finding is a finding that the defendant is GBMI. A

jury may conclude a defendant is GBMI if it finds that he committed the

charged offense while “having a psychiatric disorder which substantially

disturbs [his] thinking, feeling, or behavior and impairs [his] ability to

function.” I.C. § 35-36-1-1. A jury may conclude defendant is NGRI if it finds

that “as a result of mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the

wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense.” 7 Id. § 35-41-3-6(a). The

defendant bears the burden of proving mental illness and the inability to

appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions by a preponderance of the evidence.

Satterfield v. State, 33 N.E.3d 344, 348 (Ind. 2015) (citing I.C. § 35-41-4-1(b);

Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 709 (Ind. 2010)).

[35] The parties do not dispute that Guilfoyle proved he had a mental illness, mental

disease, or mental defect. Rather, their dispute centers on whether Guilfoyle

was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct when he committed

the offenses.

[36] A jury “may consider all relevant evidence in reaching a verdict,” including lay

opinion testimony and the circumstances of the crime, Satterfield, 33 N.E.3d at

7
As used in the insanity statute, “‘mental disease or defect’ means a severely abnormal mental condition that
grossly and demonstrably impairs a person’s perception, but the term does not include an abnormality
manifested only by repeated unlawful or antisocial conduct.” I.C. § 35-41-3-6(b).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 19 of 28
348, as well as “testimony from expert witnesses, proof of the defendant’s

demeanor at the time of the offense, and the defendant’s history of mental

illness,” Payne, 144 N.E.3d at 710 (citing Barcroft, 111 N.E.3d at 1002–03,

1008). “Expert opinion is ‘purely advisory’ and a factfinder may discredit [an

expert’s] testimony, or disregard it completely, in lieu of other probative

evidence.” Id. (citing Barcroft, 111 N.E.3d at 1003). This is true even when the

expert testimony is unanimous. Satterfield, 33 N.E.3d at 348–49.

[37] Guilfoyle argues that Doctors Olive, Parker, and Martinez presented

unanimous opinions that Guilfoyle did not appreciate the wrongfulness of his

conduct when he committed his offense, and Doctor Connor’s contrary opinion

“did not create a genuine factual dispute,” Appellant’s Br. at 19. 8 In support,

Guilfoyle points to lay testimony regarding his August 2022 ER visit, during

which he claims he “was diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, and substance use

disorder,” Appellant’s Br. at 19–20 (citing Tr. Vol. XI at 82); his father’s

decision to take away his gun; Stringer’s description of him “acting ‘manic’ by

talking quickly and saying ‘bizarre stuff’” at church a “few weeks before the

shootings,” id. at 20 (quoting Tr. Vol. VIII at 44); the numerous “delusional

statements” he made after being shot, id.; his description of the events during

8
Guilfoyle asserts that before trial, Doctor Connor “agreed with the three other experts,” Appellant’s Br. at
19 (citing Tr. Vol. IX at 64), but once Doctor Connor “receiv[ed] Guilfoyle’s medical records and
interview[ed] Hannah, he believed Guilfoyle may have been malingering,” id. (citing Tr. Vol. IX at 11–13).
The record does not support this characterization. According to Doctor Connor’s testimony, he originally
concluded that Guilfoyle was not insane, briefly believed Guilfoyle was insane after reviewing more of
Guilfoyle’s medical records, and then reverted to his original conclusion after interviewing Hannah.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 20 of 28
his interview with the Indiana State Police; and his exhibition of “delusional

behavior, psychotic features, and symptoms of hallucinations” that continued

“[f]or days after the shootings,” id. at 21 (citing Tr. Vol. VII at 146, 151–52,

163–64).

[38] Guilfoyle’s argument is a request to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness

credibility, which we cannot do. See Payne, 144 N.E.3d at 709–10 (quoting

Thompson, 804 N.E.2d at 1149). As the State points out, Doctor Connor’s

opinion—although contrary to the other three experts’ opinions—“was

sufficiently probative of sanity to sustain the jury’s verdict,” Appellee’s Br. at

16, and it was for the jury to decide which expert or experts to believe.

Additional lay witness testimony established that Guilfoyle seemed normal in

the days leading up to the offenses, and Guilfoyle’s own statements after the

shootings showed he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct, such as his

admissions to shooting Hannah and his requests to be taken to jail.

[39] The evidence here is not without conflict such that it leads to only the

conclusion that Guilfoyle was insane when he committed his offenses. The

jury, faced with conflicting evidence, decided that Guilfoyle appreciated the

wrongfulness of his conduct when he committed his offenses. On this record,

we will not disturb that decision.

1. Guilfoyle’s Sentence Is Inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B)

[40] Guilfoyle argues his sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) and

should be revised. The Indiana Constitution authorizes us to independently

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 21 of 28
review and revise a trial court’s sentencing decision. Russell v. State, 234 N.E.3d

829, 855–56 (Ind. 2024) (citing Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; Jackson v. State, 145

N.E.3d 783, 784 (Ind. 2020)). That authority is implemented through Appellate

Rule 7(B), which permits us to revise a sentence if, “after due consideration of

the trial court’s decision, [we] find[] that the sentence is inappropriate in light of

the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Konkle v. State, 253

N.E.3d 1068, 1092 (Ind. 2025) (quoting McCain v. State, 148 N.E.3d 977, 985

(Ind. 2020)).

[41] Our Supreme Court has explained our role under Appellate Rule 7(B) as

follows:

“[O]ur constitutional authority to review and revise sentences
boils down to our collective sense of what is appropriate,” Cramer
[v. State], 240 N.E.3d [693,] 698 (Ind. 2024), an act that, importantly, is
reserved for “exceptional” cases, id. (citing Gibson v. State, 43
N.E.3d 231, 241 (Ind. 2015)). Determining a sentence’s
appropriateness thus “turns on our sense of the culpability of the
defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others,
and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.”
McCain, 148 N.E.3d at 985.

Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1092.

[42] In reviewing the defendant’s sentence, “we are not limited to the mitigators and

aggravators found by the trial court,” Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 4 (Ind. 2014),

and we “focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—

consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 22 of 28
individual count,” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 122 (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at

1225). A trial judge may impose any sentence within the statutory range

without regard to the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. Anglemyer

v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 489 (Ind. 2007), as amended (July 10, 2007), decision

clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). However, maximum sentences

are generally reserved for “the worst of the worst” offenders. Schuler v. State,

112 N.E.3d 180, 190 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Hamilton v. State, 955 N.E.2d 723,

727 (Ind. 2011)). When considering the nature of the offense, we start with the

advisory sentence. Brown, 10 N.E.3d at 4 (citing Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at

494).

[43] Here, Guilfoyle was convicted of and sentenced on two Level 1 felonies and

two Level 6 felonies; Guilfoyle’s sentence was also enhanced for his use of a

firearm. “[A] person who commits a Level 1 felony . . . shall be imprisoned for

a fixed term of between twenty (20) and forty (40) years, with the advisory

sentence being thirty (30) years.” I.C. § 35-50-2-4(b) (emphasis added). On each of

his two Level 1 felony convictions, the trial court sentenced Guilfoyle to 38

years executed at the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). “A person

who commits a Level 6 felony . . . shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of

between six (6) months and two and one-half (2 ½) years, with the advisory

sentence being one (1) year.” Id. § 35-50-2-7(b) (emphasis added). On each of his

two Level 6 felony convictions, the trial court sentenced Guilfoyle to 2 years

executed at the DOC. Because Guilfoyle admitted to using a firearm in his

attempted murder of Hannah, his sentence for that conviction was to be

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 23 of 28
enhanced by an additional fixed term between 5 and 20 years. See id. § 35-50-2-

11(g). The trial court enhanced that sentence by 20 years, resulting in a 58-year

sentence. The trial court ordered Guilfoyle to serve all four sentences

consecutively, for a total of 100 years executed at the DOC. This total sentence

is only five years less than the maximum sentence the trial court could have

imposed.

[44] As to the nature of the offenses, Guilfoyle shot Hannah in the back of the head

at point blank range in their family home before dragging her outside into

freezing winter weather and leaving her to die. Although the record is unclear

concerning where Child was when all this occurred, at the very least, Guilfoyle

carried Child right past Hannah as he left the house. Guilfoyle then walked

with Child, who was clad in only thin pajamas, to his father’s home. When

Deputy Bowers tried to help them, Guilfoyle—with Child still in his arms—

shot Deputy Bowers, too. Importantly, the jury determined that Guilfoyle

committed these offenses while “having a psychiatric disorder which

substantially disturb[ed his] thinking, feeling, or behavior and impair[ed his]

ability to function.” I.C. § 35-36-1-1.

[45] Hannah suffered numerous life-altering injuries, Child suffered from early

onsite frostbite on her leg, and Deputy Bowers was not permanently physically

harmed because the bullet struck his bulletproof vest. At the sentencing

hearing, Hannah’s mother testified that Hannah had lost her “vibrancy” and

that she fears Hannah may never be happy again. Tr. Vol. X at 110. Hannah’s

mother also testified that after the shootings, Child “would scream and cry out

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 24 of 28
at night, crying out for her mama.” Id. at 109. Deputy Bowers’s wife testified

that Guilfoyle’s actions “turned a proud, strong father and husband into a man

haunted by a moment he didn’t deserve.” Id. at 104. Deputy Bowers “now

struggles when [his] baby girl cries, because the sound of those cries brings him

back to [Child]’s.” Id.

[46] In considering the character of the offender, “we engage in a broad

consideration of a defendant’s qualities,” T.A.D.W., 51 N.E.3d at 1211 (citing

Aslinger v. State, 2 N.E.3d 84, 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), clarified on other grounds on

reh’g), including whether the defendant has “substantial virtuous traits or

persistent examples of good character,” Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1093 (quoting

Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122).

[47] Guilfoyle’s presentence investigation report (“PSI”) shows that this is his first

conviction. Regarding his time as a law enforcement officer, the PSI states:

The defendant also worked as an “auxiliary” (non-paid) police
officer in Madeira, Ohio then was hired on to Greenhills, Ohio
Police Department around 2014. He worked for Greenhills part
time for about 2 years then was hired as full time.

Appellant’s App. Vol. VII at 169. Because of departmental policy violations,

Guilfoyle did not retain his position for long. Guilfoyle reported that “after

losing his job as a police officer he started to drink almost daily. At one point

he was drinking half a bottle of Maker’s Mark whiskey a day.” Id. at 170.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 25 of 28
[48] Upon leaving law enforcement, Guilfoyle “completed four years of

apprenticeships with the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18

. . . and obtained an Associate’s Degree in Construction.” Appellant’s App.

Vol. VII at 168. Approximately a year before the offenses occurred, Guilfoyle

and his parents started a trucking and excavation company. And less than one

month before the offenses occurred, Guilfoyle and Hannah started their

construction company.

[49] As a result of the shootout he initiated with Deputy Bowers, Guilfoyle is now

paralyzed from the chest down and requires intensive care. Regarding his

mental condition, the testimony at trial also showed that Guilfoyle was

diagnosed with PTSD and Bipolar I disorder. During the offense, at a

minimum, his actions were marked by mental illness. Guilfoyle’s mental

condition is a significant factor in our consideration of his character.

Guilfoyle’s therapist testified that she had been working with him since April of

2023 and that he had made “radical” progress with his mental health, Tr. Vol.

X at 123. Guilfoyle’s therapist also confirmed that her initial treatment of

Guilfoyle included teaching him about his mental health diagnoses, and she

knew this was occurring before the court-appointed experts evaluated him.

[50] A key component of this case is the jury’s finding that Guilfoyle was guilty but

mentally ill. Although a person who is found guilty but mentally ill “‘is not

automatically entitled to any particular credit or deduction from his otherwise

aggravated sentence’ simply by virtue of being mentally ill,” Weeks v. State, 697

N.E.2d 28, 30 (Ind. 1998) (emphasis added) (quoting Archer v. State, 689 N.E.2d

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 26 of 28
678, 684 (Ind. 1997)), the facts of this case demonstrate that Guilfoyle’s mental

illness must be considered in our Appellate Rule 7(B) review, see, e.g., Lopez v.

State, 869 N.E.2d 1254, 1260–61 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (collecting cases in which

appellate court reduced sentences based in part on mental illness evidence).

[51] In light of the jury’s finding, Guilfoyle’s lack of criminal history, years of

offering volunteered police work, steady employment history, and current and

future lack of physical independence, we believe his near-maximum 100-year

sentence is inappropriate. This is not a case where the defendant was found

guilty and there was some evidence in the record tending to show he had a

mental illness. Guilfoyle’s mental illness was found to have substantially

disturbed his thinking, feeling, or behavior or impaired his ability to function

when he committed these acts. Guilfoyle’s crimes were undoubtedly horrific

and will have life-long consequences for all involved. But we also cannot

ignore the jury’s decision to find him guilty but mentally ill. On the facts of this

case, we conclude that a nearly maximum sentence is inappropriate and

therefore revise Guilfoyle’s sentence from a total of 100 years to 80 years, with

the specific sentences revised as follows:

Conviction Type Original Revised
Sentence Sentence
Count I Attempted Murder Level 1 felony 38 years 33 years
Use of a Firearm Enhancement 20 years 11 years
Count IV Attempted Murder Level 1 felony 38 years 33 years
Count V Neglect of a Dependent Level 6 felony 2 years 1½ years
Count VI Neglect of a Dependent Level 6 felony 2 years 1½ years
Total 100 years 80 years

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 27 of 28
As before, Guilfoyle’s individual sentences are to be served consecutively.

[52] Our revision of Guilfoyle’s sentence should not be read to lessen the severity of

the nature of his crimes, nor should it be read to mean that the trial court

abused its discretion in imposing Guilfoyle’s sentence. However, in the

exercise of our constitutional authority to review and revise sentences, we

believe Guilfoyle’s 100-year sentence is inappropriate.

Conclusion
[53] In sum, the jury did not err by rejecting Guilfoyle’s insanity defense, but his

sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B). We therefore affirm

Guilfoyle’s convictions and remand this case to the trial court with instructions

to issue an amended sentencing order consistent with this opinion.

[54] Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

Tavitas, C.J., and Vaidik, J., concur.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Cara Schaefer Wieneke
Wieneke Law Office, LLC
Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Indiana Attorney General
Caroline G. Templeton
Assistant Section Chief, Criminal Appeals
Indianapolis, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1406 | March 6, 2026 Page 28 of 28