In a split decision, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a murder case against a Logan County man accused of shooting his son and sent the case back to the circuit court to be reinstated.

The state appeals court found that the Logan County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office met its burden of showing probable cause that Darrell Evans, 64, of Lewisburg, was unjustified in using deadly force while fatally shooting his son, Richard Evans, 37, on Aug. 4, 2022, at the elder Evans’ home.

A three-justice panel on the appeals court held 2-1 that Logan Circuit Court Judge Joe Hendricks’ 2023 ruling dismissing the case against Evans and granting him immunity from prosecution was “clearly erroneous,”

In remanding the case back to the circuit court for the indictment against Evans to be reinstated. the appeals court determined that there were enough “small but crucial discrepancies” in Evans’ multiple statements to authorities about the events of the shooting that it was premature for the circuit court to grant him immunity without allowing a jury to decide on the facts of the case.

Court records note that Evans initially told the Kentucky State Police that he and his son had a verbal argument in the driveway and Darrell Evans went inside his house to get away from his son, who followed him, and that he went on to tell Richard Evans to leave before picking up the gun and firing a shot that struck Richard Evans in the head.

A second statement given a couple of hours later to KSP detectives after being read his rights offered a similar account of events, except Darrell told KSP he did not tell his son to leave the house, informing law enforcement that he did not say anything when specifically asked by KSP if he told Richard Evans to stop or not come any closer.

During a subsequent competency evaluation, Evans reportedly said that he tripped and fell while walking toward the living room where he kept his gun, and as he regained his footing while picking up the gun, it discharged accidentally, Evans saying that his eyes were closed at the time but he heard the shot, records show.

The appeals court determined that there were enough conflicting statements from Evans for the case to advance to trial.

Additionally, the ruling from the appeals court found that Hendricks’ determination that Richard Evans made unlawful entry into his father’s house just before the shooting was erroneous.

Under the state’s so-called “stand your ground” law, a person is entitled to immunity from prosecution if they use deadly force against someone who makes unlawful and forcible entry into their home.

Though Richard Evans had moved to Owensboro, his father noted that Richard occasionally came to his home in Lewisburg, had showered there a week before the shooting and was still receiving his mail there.

The state appeals court found those factors to be enough evidence to contradict Darrell Evans’ contention that his son unlawfully entered the house just before the shooting.

“Furthermore, even if Darrell did tell Richard to leave, that fact would not negate the lawfulness of Richard’s entry into the residence in the first place,” appeals court Judge Annette Karem wrote for the majority in the ruling.

Judge J. Christopher McNeill dissented, finding that the discrepancies in Darrell Evans’ statements were not significant enough to counter Hendricks’ granting immunity to Evans.

McNeill also wrote that Hendricks properly considered all the circumstances surrounding the incident in dismissing the case, noting that Richard Evans “appeared agitated and belligerent” before the shooting, had a previous history of drug use and meth in his possession when he was shot, and that Darrell Evans reported that he and his son had prior physical and verbal confrontations and that he obtained the pistol used in the shooting in part to protect himself from his son.

“The majority’s decision will permit, if not require, the following: An elderly alcoholic will be arrested and placed back in the custody of the Commonwealth. He will be tried for killing his own son, a tragedy to which he is the only living eyewitness,” McNeill wrote. “He may or may not prevail, even though a trial judge determined that he should not even be placed in legal jeopardy. And all of this at the expense of the Commonwealth, in both treasure and toil.”