Appeals court upholds murder, other charges from bar shooting

INDIANAPOLIS — The state appellate court has upheld a Goshen man's convictions for murder and battery following a 2020 shooting inside an Elkhart bar.

Jordon Norton, 33, received a 75-year sentence after he was convicted of the murder of David Artley on Aug. 23, 2020. A jury in August 2023 convicted Norton of shooting Artley to death inside a downtown Elkhart bar, striking him with five of the seven shots he fired inside the crowded barroom just after last call.

Norton opened fire after 43-year-old Artley had walked away, and stood over him and continued shooting as the man was facedown on the floor, jurors heard. The jury also viewed security footage of the shooting and the events leading up to it.

Norton testified that he feared Artley was going to kill him.

Norton was also convicted of battery with a deadly weapon and criminal recklessness at an earlier trial, in June 2022, related to injuries caused to another bar patron by a stray shot. He was sentenced to seven years in the Indiana Department of Corrections.

All three felonies stem from the same shooting, but the first jury to hear the case was deadlocked on the murder charge and Norton was retried.

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld Norton's murder conviction in May followed by the other two charges this month.

In his appeal of the murder conviction, Norton challenged the judge's ruling of inadmissibility ahead of trial for evidence he hoped would bolster his self-defense claim. Norton wanted to introduce a psychologist's testimony and report on his mental health and the fear he had of serious injury or death due to an autoimmune disorder that causes severe bleeding.

He sought to use the expert evidence to prove to jurors his belief that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent harm. But such evidence is only admissible in support of a defense of insanity or effect-of-battery, which Norton did not offer, according to the May 1 written decision from the court of appeals.

The question of whether Norton acted reasonably to a perceived threat was exclusively up to the jury to decide, according to the memorandum.

In appealing his conviction for battery with a deadly weapon as a Level 5 felony and criminal recklessness as a Level 6 felony, Norton argued that the instructions on self-defense given to jurors ahead of deliberation misstated the law. He believes their verdict was influenced by a line incorrectly stating that a person may not use force if they are committing a crime that is "directly and immediately connected to the confrontation."

His own proposed final instructions pointed to "an immediate causal connection between the crime and confrontation," language that the Indiana Supreme Court has used when ruling on cases involving jury instructions on self-defense. Norton claimed that the erroneous instruction allowed the jury to disregard his self-defense claim because he was committing the crime of unlawful possession of a handgun at the time of the shooting.

In their June 5 opinion, appellate judges say they are not persuaded that the jury reached its verdict based on the erroneous instruction. They noted that the jury instructions expressly told them they were not permitted to discredit a self-defense claim on the basis of unlawful or unlicensed handgun possession.

They also observed that Norton fired multiple shots at Artley after the man fell to the ground, which they say undercuts a self-defense claim.

'No restraint'

The court upheld the sentence Norton received in all of his convictions. He had argued that the prison terms for murder and for the other two felonies were inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of the offenses.

His appeal in both instances claimed that Norton should not have received more than the advisory term, which is 55 years for murder, three years for battery and one year for recklessness. Norton pointed out that he didn't plan the shooting ahead of time but reacted in the middle of a tense situation, and that he maintained he acted in self-defense.

Norton characterized his criminal history as relatively minor. Convictions on his record include meth possession and a handgun charge related to firing shots at a man while driving past his residence, both Level 6 felonies.

He also pleaded guilty in 2019 to a federal charge of receipt of a firearm while under felony indictment.

Norton said of his character that he has been drug-free since 2019, that he supports his wife and three children and that he enjoys cooking out and bowling. He said he has expressed remorse over the fatal shooting.

He also pointed to underlying issues with depression, a panic disorder and agoraphobia.

"These considerations show Jordon to be more than this act; a man with flaws like anyone else who made a poor decision in a tense situation, but also a man who supported his wife and children and had overcome past drug addictions," his appeal states.

The appellate judges pointed to Norton's criminal history going back to incidents of juvenile delinquency and concluded that he did not demonstrate positive traits or good character that would warrant a revised sentence. They described Norton's crime as particularly egregious, showing no self-control or restraint.

"Here, the record discloses that Norton shot a person who had not threatened him, had not touched him, was not in possession of a weapon, and had turned and begun to walk away from Norton. Norton nevertheless shot David repeatedly," the judges wrote. "And, while David was wounded, unarmed, and laying face-down on the floor, Norton stood over David and shot him again in the back. We cannot say Norton’s offense was accompanied by any apparent restraint or regard for others."