“stabbing” motions against an unarmed Barboza. Furthermore, James observed that knife wounds on MariscaPs leg and thigh were inflicted by Mariscal when he missed Barboza. The State’s evidence is sufficient to support a jury determination that even though Barboza was involved in the initial pushing, he was attempting to retreat at the time Mariscal attacked him with the knife. The evidence is also sufficient to support a jury determination that Barboza was unarmed and that the blows he landed were for the purpose of defending himself and effecting his escape from his knife-wielding attacker. In short, the evidence was sufficient to support a jury determination that Mariscal was not acting in self-defense at the time he stabbed Barboza. See Jones v. State, 491 N.E.2d 999, 1000 (Ind.1986) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the use of deadly force as a
holding that corroborative evidence of prior specific acts of violence by victim may be admissible in selfdefense case where the defendant knew of the act holding that the validity of the defendants selfdefense claim was an issue for the jury where the victim retreated after starting an altercation holding that a defendant who alleges selfdefense can show through the testimony of another witness that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor a defendants prior knowledge of the victims reputation for violence is irrelevant because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim rather than the defendants state of mind holding the defendants claim that he was denied the right to testify was appropriate for direct review when the record was adequately developed to permit full consideration of the defendants claim the pertinent facts were undisputed a pcr hearing was not necessary to resolve a factual dispute and would not aid in the application of the law and the defendants claim was presented not as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim but rather as an error committed by the trial court in excluding the defendants testimony which was not an appropriate basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction