D'Andre Lee Goodwin, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Nov 02 2018, 8:59 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this CLERK
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
precedent or cited before any court except for the and Tax Court
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Marielena Duerring Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
D’Andre Lee Goodwin, Jr., November 2, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1335
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kristine Osterday,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
20D01-1602-F1-1
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1335 | November 2, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] In March of 2015, D’Andre Goodwin, Jr., and A.M. were both incarcerated in
the Elkhart County Jail when Goodwin became aware that a relative of A.M.’s
had been involved in Goodwin’s arrest. Goodwin told A.M. that he was going
to kill the relative and A.M.’s family. A couple of weeks later, Goodwin
approached A.M., told A.M. to fellate him, and said that A.M. knew what
would happen if he refused. A.M. complied out of fear for his relatives. The
State charged Goodwin with Level 1 felony rape, and a jury found him guilty as
charged. Goodwin contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to
sustain his conviction. Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In early March of 2015, A.M. was incarcerated in the Elkhart County Jail.
A.M. was in the same “pod” as Goodwin and six others, and everyone in the
pod got along well until Goodwin found out that A.M. was related to the
officer who had arrested him, Elkhart Police Detective Bryan Schroth.
Goodwin began threatening A.M.’s family in general and Detective Schroth in
particular, telling A.M. that he was going kill his family, attach a bomb to
Detective Schroth’s car, and “go American Gangster on him.” Tr. Vol. II p.
128. American Gangster is a film in which a character “did some really
screwed up stuff, I mean, flaying people alive.” Tr. Vol. II p. 128. A.M. took
these threats seriously, in part because he believed Goodwin to be affiliated
with the gang “the Folks[,]” which, in turn, is allegedly affiliated with the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1335 | November 2, 2018 Page 2 of 5
“Gangster Disciples.” Tr. Vol. II p. 130. A.M. believed that if Goodwin “had
enough pull then yeah, they very well could die.” Tr. Vol. II p. 131. A.M. did
not immediately report the threats out of fear.
[3] “[A] couple weeks” later, Goodwin and A.M. were alone in their bunk room
when Goodwin walked over, “dropped his pants, [and] told [A.M.] to suck his
d[***.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 135; Vol. III p. 19. Goodwin told A.M. that he had to
fellate him or he “knew what would happen” and that he “‘kn[e]w what [he]
had to do.’” Tr. Vol. II pp. 139, 199. A.M. did not resist because he was
“scared for [his] family” and “worried about [his] cousins.” Tr. Vol. III p. 23.
After Goodwin ejaculated and left to take a shower, A.M. “climbed under [his]
covers and cried[,]” feeling “terrified [and] ashamed.” Tr. Vol. II p. 140.
Approximately two weeks later, A.M. reported the incident to his mother
during a video call, and she reported it to A.M.’s attorney, who contacted the
authorities.
[4] On January 29, 2016, the State charged Goodwin with Level 1 felony rape. On
April 19, 2018, the jury found Goodwin guilty as charged. On May 11, 2018,
the trial court sentenced Goodwin to thirty years of incarceration, with five
years suspended to probation.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Goodwin contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to sustain his
conviction for Level 1 felony rape. When reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence, we neither weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1335 | November 2, 2018 Page 3 of 5
Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995). We look only to the evidence
of probative value and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom which
support the verdict. Id. If from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative
value from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the defendant
was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we will affirm the conviction. Spangler v.
State, 607 N.E.2d 720, 724 (Ind. 1993).
[6] In order to convict Goodwin of Level 1 felony rape, the State was required to
establish that he “knowingly or intentionally cause[d A.M.] to perform or
submit to [an act involving … a sex organ of one (1) person and the mouth …
of another person] by using or threatening the use of deadly force[.]” Ind. Code
§§ 35-42-4-1; 35-31.5-2-221.5. Goodwin contends that the State failed to
produce evidence sufficient to establish that his threats to A.M. were
“imminent.” Although the State argues that there is no statutory requirement
that the State prove that the threats were imminent, we leave that question for
another day, because even if the State was required to establish that the threats
were imminent, it produced sufficient evidence to do just that.
[7] The Indiana Supreme Court has held that “[i]t is sufficient if the threat of
deadly force is imminent enough to cause the victim to submit to the
aggressor.” Pennington v. State, 523 N.E.2d 414, 415–16 (Ind. 1988). A.M.
testified that while he did not want to fellate Goodwin, Goodwin told him that
he had to or he “knew what would happen” and that he submitted to him out of
fear that he would kill (or cause to be killed) his family and cousins. Even
though Goodwin did not reiterate his previous threats against A.M.’s relatives,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1335 | November 2, 2018 Page 4 of 5
he reminded A.M. that they were still in full force, causing him to submit. This
is sufficient evidence to support a finding that Goodwin’s threats were
“imminent.”
[8] Goodwin also argues that the threats he made against A.M.’s relatives cannot
sustain his conviction because there was insufficient evidence to establish that
he had the ability to follow through. The question, however, is not whether
Goodwin had the ability to make good on his threats, it is whether they caused
A.M. to perform fellatio on him, and there is sufficient evidence to establish
that they did. A.M. testified that he believed Goodwin had the ability to harm
his relatives due to his alleged gang affiliation and, as mentioned, that he
submitted to Goodwin’s demand out of fear for their safety. We conclude that
the State produced sufficient evidence to sustain Goodwin’s conviction for
Level 1 felony rape.
[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1335 | November 2, 2018 Page 5 of 5