Greensburg — In the state's perspective, James Dennis Imel Jr. wanted his father to die by his hand. The defense saw the tragic death that unfolded on Jan. 3 as the result of an accident.

Those were the perspectives, backed by testimony and evidence, the jury took into the deliberation room to decide the fate of Imel Jr. in the second day of his murder trial.

Upon request from the defense, Superior Court Judge Matt Bailey added the additional charge of reckless homicide, a class C felony, for the jury's consideration. After approximately 4 hours of deliberation, the jury accepted that charge, returning a guilty verdict for reckless homicide in the death of his father, James Dennis Imel Sr.

Upon the conviction, defense attorney Christopher Tebbe requested Imel Jr. be released until the sentencing hearing on Aug. 26. However, the state objected, asking for a $50,000 cash bond. Bailey accepted the state's request.

Rosenberry said he felt the verdict was fair and the jury had concerned all the information given.

Defense attorney Frank Hamilton also was pleased the charge of murder was not returned for conviction.

"We were pleased by the verdict. They could have found him not guilty," Hamilton said afterwards. "There was a lot of reasonable doubt, but the jury did a good job."

Tebbe explained the request for the additional charge was 'purely a legal argument.'

"The state could've charged him (with reckless homicide), but didn't. We respectfully disagreed," Tebbe said. "We felt the facts were closer to reckless homicide."

Hamilton, while respecting Bailey's decision, still felt the bond given was 'excessive' and Imel Jr. should have been released from jail until sentencing.

It was a long road to the verdict, which came in around 7:40 p.m., about 11 hours after the start of the second day of proceedings.

The day opened with the state's last witness, Rafael Perez, a firearms specialist for the Indiana State Police. He told the jury, in detail, the results of the tests done on the handgun that killed Imel Sr. that night, confirming it was the weapon that fired the fatal shot.

However, it was the unique properties of the weapon that interested Hamilton. Through Hamilton's questions, Perez informed the jury the holding pin was missing from the gun, which meant the gun didn't necessarily have to be cocked to fire. Perez said, pulling the slide could cause a cartridge to enter the chamber and 'slam fire' upon entrance. The gun also had a firing pin that was slightly off center, which can also cause a slam fire "if the gun is cocked when the pin is off."

In his tests, he noted the gun malfunctioned twice, the only attempts he made to use it. The first time the casing lodged in the chamber, like it did the night of the shooting. The second time resulted in a slam fire.

Rosenberry redirected his questions noted that in most cases, the gun still had to be cocked and the safety off for the gun to fire and the casing to stick in the malfunctioning way Perez described. He affirmed Rosenberry's suspicions on the matter noting there was a small chance simply pulling the slide would cause the gun to fire and the casing to stick.

As the state rested, defense attorney Amanda Canessa offered a motion to dismiss the case 'based on lack of evidence' proving Imel Jr. knowingly committed the crime. Judge Bailey, however, denied the motion as well as the second attempt to provide character witnesses and evidence of prior history of violence between father and son.

With denials, the defense called Imel Jr. to the stand.

Hamilton's first question maintained what he says has been Imel Jr.'s statement since seconds after the shooting. When asked if he killed his father, Imel Jr. replied, "No, I didn't."

Imel Jr. painted a small picture of his life - two kids, a GED, employed in various jobs but largely unemployed in the last year. He noted he has been a drinker of whiskey "on days when I don't have my kids,: much like the evening of Jan. 3. Imel Jr. touched on the rocky relationship with his father, which had been changed in the six months leading up to the death.

"It had been improving. It had its ups and downs, periods of not communicating," Imel Jr. told the jury.

Hamilton then had the defendant detail the events of that day. Imel Jr. said he woke up around noon and was called to the City Cafe by Imel Sr. and Boin 'Wayne' Cain. He arrived between 1 and 2 p.m., he said, and began drinking with them. During the few hours they spent at the bar, Imel, Jr,, said he had a playful altercation with Cain's brother, Paul Cain. They later left, dropping off Wayne Cain at home, while he and his father visited John Imel, the brother of the victim. Around 7 that evening, they arrived at Cain's and began drinking and playing cards with Cain and Robert Imel.

During the game, he said, his father became agitated about the incident with Paul Cain, informing his son not to take the man lightly. Imel Jr. said he played it off, but Imel Sr. became upset and aggressive. He jumped up and pushed over the bar on his way to his son. Imel Jr. said he stood up only to be pushed back into the chair, which toppled over and caused him to hit his head and cut his back as he landed on the floor. They separated, the father going outside and the son heading to the bedroom where he said he packed his stuff and picked up the gun from the floor underneath the backpack. This was contrary to the testimony of Robert Imel and Imel Jr.'s statement to police that he removed the gun from the backpack.

Imel Jr. said he put the gun in his right front jacket pocket, spoke to Robert Imel in the room, never saying he would shoot anyone. He said he had never even fired the weapon. The two of them got up to leave. Robert Imel was already gone when Imel Jr. emerged from the bedroom to "tell Wayne bye and help pick up." At that time, he said, his father came back inside.

"He had a mean look on his face," Imel Jr. said. "He looked like he was looking through me."

Through a demonstration in court, Imel Jr. showed how he pulled the gun out, put his hands up and aimed at the ceiling while informing his father he was leaving and didn't want trouble. Imel Sr. grabbed the gun with his left hand while grabbing his son by the neck with the other. They tussled for a moment.

"That's when the gun popped," he said.

In the moments after, he said he implored Cain to help him get his father to the hospital. Then he panicked. He drove out toward Shiloh Cemetery discarding the weapon and ammo separately. He drove around the county, then hit the highway. He tried to contact Cain from the rest area outside Batesville on I-74, went in and out of sleep, then drove on to Ohio where he stopped and called again. At that point, he said, he turned around and came home to give himself up.

As he ended his testimony, Imel Jr. stated again he didn't kill his father, adding what life has been like since that night.

"I'm at a loss. I can't believe it even happened. I'm sad and sorry it all went down the way it did," Imel Jr. said. "The only reason I took the gun out of my pocket was so nobody got hurt."

Rosenberry, on his cross examination, took issue with the contradictory statement about the backpack as well as the claim Imel Jr.'s index finger was injured by the slide as the gun went off. Rosenberry would later replay the tape where Imel Jr. stated his gun was in the backpack as well as introduce photos taken the day of the interview, Jan. 4, that showed no sign of injury to the finger.

He felt if Imel Jr. had no intention of hurting his father and was leaving, he would have done so without stopping in the kitchen and without removing the gun from the backpack. In his closing statement, Rosenberry alluded to the reason for the inconsistent statement.

"Now, he's trying to explain why that gun ever came out of his backpack," Rosenberry said. "It wasn't an accident. It was murder."

Hamilton, in his closing argument, noted the evidence and the varied testimony leaves much to be determined, and the jury should be able to find enough doubt to return a not guilty charge for murder.

"There are certainly different stories on these issues, which creates reasonable doubt. That's something you're going to have to work out," Hamilton said. "I'm suggesting to you there is nothing but reasonable doubt here."

Hamilton asked the jury to see it for themselves and not add to the pain already suffered.

"Don't compound the tragedy by convicting (Imel Jr.) of murder," he said.

Imel Jr. could face up to 8 years at the sentencing hearing, scheduled for 3 p.m., Aug. 26.