Anthony Spearman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 12 2016, 9:19 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Matthew D. Anglemeyer Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Marjorie Lawyer-Smith
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Anthony Spearman, August 12, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1512-CR-2072
v. Appeal from the Marion County
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Grant Hawkins,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G05-1405-MR-022788
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2072 | August 12, 2016 Page 1 of 9
[1] Following a bench trial, Anthony Spearman was convicted of one count of
murder, a felony, and one count of robbery, a Class B felony. Spearman
appeals, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On April 22, 2014, Kevin Coughlin and Adrian Thomas left Coughlin’s Marion
County home to purchase methamphetamine. They drove to a Chase Bank
(the Bank) in Coughlin’s gray Pontiac Vibe. At 10:42 p.m., Coughlin withdrew
$300 from the ATM and gave it to Thomas. Coughlin stayed at the Bank in his
vehicle while Thomas went to purchase methamphetamine from a dealer
named “Larry.” Transcript at 48. While Coughlin was withdrawing money, the
Bank’s surveillance video showed two individuals walking down the sidewalk
and crossing the street toward the Bank. At 10:43 p.m., the surveillance video
showed Coughlin’s vehicle being driven away from the Bank.
[4] Thomas purchased the methamphetamine and returned to the Bank about
thirty minutes later, but neither Coughlin nor his vehicle were at the Bank.
Thomas waited at the Bank for approximately thirty minutes and then
attempted to call Coughlin, but Coughlin did not answer.
[5] At approximately 12:30 a.m. on April 23, 2014, a 911 caller stated that he heard
five gunshots outside his bedroom window. The police responded and when
they arrived found a deceased individual on the ground in the middle of an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2072 | August 12, 2016 Page 2 of 9
alley off of West 34th Street. The individual’s wrists and ankles were bound
with cables and a cloth was in his mouth. An autopsy revealed that the
deceased individual had suffered six gunshot wounds. The following day, the
deceased individual was identified as Coughlin. Police went to Coughlin’s
home to confirm that he was missing and found it ransacked. Coughlin’s
vehicle was also missing.
[6] On May 1, 2014, an officer spotted a gray Pontiac Vibe that fit the description
of Coughlin’s missing vehicle and began following it. The officer ran the
vehicle’s license plate number through his computer and confirmed that it was
Coughlin’s. After requesting backup, the officer continued following the
vehicle until it parked in front of a residence on Brookway Avenue, where the
driver lived with Katelynn Persinger. At that time, because no other officers
had arrived yet, the officer “ordered both the driver and the passenger to put
their hands up where [he] could see them.” Id. at 108. When additional
officers arrived, they ordered the occupants out of the vehicle. The driver was
identified as Spearman. The officers then searched the inside of the vehicle and
found a cell phone under the driver’s seat. Spearman told the police that he
obtained Coughlin’s vehicle on April 28, 2014 from an individual named “B” in
exchange for drugs. However, Persinger stated that she had first seen Spearman
with the vehicle around April 24, 2014.
[7] That same day, police discovered a camouflaged bulletproof flack vest, jeans
with a chlorine burn, and a nine millimeter live round in a tote in the basement
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2072 | August 12, 2016 Page 3 of 9
of Spearman and Persinger’s residence. In her testimony, Persinger stated that
she never had a gun.
[8] Spearman agreed to speak with the police and informed them that the phone in
the vehicle was his. The records for Spearman’s phone indicated that his phone
was in the vicinity of the Bank at the time of Coughlin’s ATM withdrawal,
Coughlin’s house later that night, and the alley where Coughlin’s body was
discovered. The phone’s internet and search history revealed that between
April 25 and April 27, 2014, there were three searches with the titles of the
pages being “question buying car without title,” “sell my car without title,” and
“lost title bond for stolen or defective vehicle titles.” Id. at 264-66. Between
April 25 and April 29, 2014, there were additional searches for websites dealing
with salvage yards where people could buy and sell car parts. On April 26 and
April 27, 2014, two other searches were made on a local media station’s
website. The titles of the articles accessed were “Investigators working to
identify man found bound dead in alley” and “Do you know this man, police
need help identifying homicide victim.” Id. at 266.
[9] Additionally, the police were able to find two pictures on Spearman’s phone of
a Smith & Wesson SW or SD series handgun.1 The pictured gun was either a
nine millimeter or a .40 caliber. An analysis of the spent casings found in the
1
A Smith & Wesson SW and SD are “similar-type model[s].” Id. at 280.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2072 | August 12, 2016 Page 4 of 9
alley and in Coughlin’s shirt revealed that the type of gun used to shoot
Coughlin was a nine millimeter Smith & Wesson.
[10] On May 5, 2014, the State charged Spearman with Count I, murder; Count II,
felony murder; Count III, Class A felony robbery; and Count IV, Class B felony
criminal confinement. The State also added a sentencing enhancement as
Count V for the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. On August 18,
2015, Spearman waived his right to a jury trial. A bench trial took place on
October 29, 2015, at the conclusion of which the trial court found Spearman
guilty as charged.
[11] At the sentencing hearing on November 13, 2015, the trial court dismissed
Counts II and V, merged Count IV into Count III, and reduced Count III to a
Class B felony due to double jeopardy concerns. The trial court then sentenced
Spearman to sixty years for Count I and twelve years for Count III to be served
consecutively.
[12] Spearman now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
[13] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal
conviction, we examine only the “probative evidence and reasonable inferences
supporting the verdict.” Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 133 (Ind. 2016) (citing
McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005)). “It is the fact-finder’s role,
not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2072 | August 12, 2016 Page 5 of 9
to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction.” Id. We will
affirm if there is “substantial evidence of probative value such that a reasonable
trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Norvell v. State, 960 N.E.2d 165, 167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
[14] Spearman contends that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to
support his convictions for murder and felony robbery. It is well settled that
“circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to sustain a conviction.”
Harbert v. State, 51 N.E.3d 267, 275 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). The evidence need
not “overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Sallee, 51 N.E.3d at
133. Rather, “circumstantial evidence will be deemed sufficient if inferences
may reasonably be drawn that enable the trier of fact to find the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Donovan v. State, 937 N.E.2d 1223, 1224
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010); see also Kriner v. State, 699 N.E.2d 659, 664 (Ind. 1998)
(“[c]ircumstantial evidence by its nature is a web of facts in which no single
strand may be dispositive”).
[15] To support Spearman’s murder conviction, the State was required to prove that
Spearman “knowingly or intentionally kill[ed] another human being . . . .” Ind.
Code § 35-42-1-1. To support Spearman’s Class B felony robbery conviction,
the State was required to prove that Spearman:
knowingly or intentionally [took] property from another person
or from the presence of another person:
(1) by using or threatening the use of force on any person; or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2072 | August 12, 2016 Page 6 of 9
(2) by putting any person in fear.
I.C. § 35-42-5-1. To support the enhancement to a Class B felony, the State also
had to prove that Spearman committed the offense while armed with a deadly
weapon or that the offense resulted in bodily injury to any person other than a
defendant. Id.
[16] Spearman argues that the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to support his
convictions. The evidence most favorable to the convictions shows that
Spearman was caught driving Coughlin’s vehicle eight days after Coughlin’s
murder. Though Spearman stated that he obtained the vehicle in a drug
transaction with a man named “B” five days after Coughlin’s murder, Persinger
testified that she first saw Spearman with the vehicle the day after the murder.
Furthermore, Spearman gave a detective some phone numbers of individuals
who might know information on “B,” but the detective was unsuccessful in
reaching them. The detective also tried calling a number Spearman thought
might reach “B,” but that number was disconnected. Additionally, Spearman
gave a description of “B” that made the detective feel that “B” was “an
anonymous person that [sic] [Spearman] made up, his description was
completely irrelevant” and “very generic.” Transcript at 212, 225.
[17] The evidence at trial also shows that Spearman’s phone, which was found
under the driver’s seat, was near the same locations—the Bank where Coughlin
withdrew money, the alley where Coughlin’s body was found, and Coughlin’s
ransacked house—on the day Coughlin was murdered. Spearman asserts that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2072 | August 12, 2016 Page 7 of 9
he shared his phone with his cousin and that there is no evidence that it was
Spearman who was using the phone at the critical times. Interestingly, the
record reveals that Spearman never mentioned anyone else having his phone
when he provided his voluntary statement to a detective shortly after the
murder.
[18] Additional evidence at trial reveals that Spearman’s search history—starting
two days after Coughlin’s murder—consisted of searches dealing with buying
and selling cars without a title, losing a title for a stolen vehicle, and salvage
yards where people buy and sell car parts. The search history also showed that
news articles concerning the circumstances of Coughlin’s murder were
accessed.
[19] We also note that Spearman’s phone also contained two pictures of a Smith &
Wesson SW or SD handgun that was either a nine millimeter or a .40 caliber.
These pictures were taken by Spearman’s camera phone near the date of
Coughlin’s murder. When an officer searched the tote of Spearman’s property,
he found a nine millimeter live round with his other property. It was ultimately
determined that the gun used to shoot Coughlin was a nine millimeter Smith &
Wesson SW or SD handgun.
[20] We need not decide whether any single piece of evidence would sufficiently
overcome reasonable doubt as to Spearman’s guilt. The aggregate evidence
produces a “web of facts” that was sufficient for the trial court to infer
Spearman’s guilt for murder beyond a reasonable doubt. See Kriner, 699 N.E.2d
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2072 | August 12, 2016 Page 8 of 9
at 664. Likewise, the trial court had sufficient evidence from the facts noted
above to find Spearman guilty of robbery as a Class B felony beyond a
reasonable doubt.
[21] Judgment affirmed.
[22] Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2072 | August 12, 2016 Page 9 of 9