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
197. 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
138. 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.
2. 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)] (quoting Taylor v. State, 86 N.E.3d 157, 165 (Ind. 2017)), 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