Ricky Davis v. Sate of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 16 2019, 7:31 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ellen M. O’Connor Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Sierra A. Murray
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ricky Davis, May 16, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2363
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Marc T.
Appellee-Plaintiff Rothenberg, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G02-1609-MR-36393
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2363 | May 16, 2019 Page 1 of 5
[1] Ricky Davis appeals his conviction for Murder,1 arguing that the evidence is
insufficient. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On September 3, 2016, Davis texted Gary Rees, stating that he wanted to
purchase a specific type of marijuana. Rees had sold Davis marijuana in the
past. After negotiating about quantity and price, Davis and Rees agreed to
meet at an abandoned residence. Around 5:30 p.m., Rees arrived on his
motorcycle and parked at a small park with a playground next to the
abandoned home.
[3] Khaalid Muhammad, a neighbor who lived nearby, saw Rees park his
motorcycle. Muhammad noticed Rees because he was a white man in a
predominantly Black neighborhood. Muhammad watched as Rees approached
two Black men in the playground area. One of the men sat on a park bench,
was approximately 5’5” to 5’9” tall, had a “slight build,” was “thin,” and
appeared to have something in his lap. Tr. Vol. II p. 16-17, 22-23. He was
wearing a white t-shirt and jeans. The other man was “portly,” “husky,” and
wearing darker clothing. Id. at 17, 29. Rees walked toward the two men and
the thin Black man stood up. Muhammad stopped paying attention and
returned to what he had been doing before he noticed the activity.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2363 | May 16, 2019 Page 2 of 5
[4] Then, Muhammad heard “what sounded like a pop,” which drew his attention
back to the playground. Id. at 18. He saw the thin Black male holding a
revolver and heard a second pop. The two Black men retrieved bicycles from a
nearby fence and rode away. Rees screamed, got on his motorcycle, and drove
a short distance before collapsing. Rees, who had been shot three times, died as
a result of the shooting.
[5] When law enforcement arrived at the scene, they recovered several pieces of
physical evidence, including a bracelet and a casino card. Later testing revealed
that both objects had DNA that matched Davis’s DNA profile.
[6] On September 8, 2016, police interviewed Davis regarding Rees’s death. At
that time, Davis lied, denying any involvement or knowledge of the events that
ended with Rees’s death. He lied, stating that he did not know Rees; he lied,
stating that Rees did not have his phone number; he lied, stating that he had
lost his phone; and he lied, telling the detective that none of his property would
be near the crime scene. He had also instructed his girlfriend to lie to law
enforcement regarding his whereabouts on September 3, 2016.
[7] On September 15, 2016, the State charged Davis with murder. A bench trial
took place on July 23-24, 2018. At trial, Muhammad testified about what he
had seen on September 3, 2016. Davis also testified, admitting that he had lied
to law enforcement and admitting that he had been present when Rees was
shot. Davis testified that on that day, he was wearing a t-shirt and jeans; he
also described himself as being approximately 5’7” and a “thin guy.” Tr. Vol.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2363 | May 16, 2019 Page 3 of 5
III p. 133, 135-54. Davis stated that Markell Loritts was the other person
present and testified that Loritts was wearing a bulky, black jacket on the day of
the shooting.
[8] On July 30, 2018, the trial court found Davis guilty, noting that Muhammad’s
testimony was “the most vital testimony in this entire trial” and that the trial
court “found Mr. Muhammad to be credible.” Tr. Vol. III p. 96. On
September 4, 2018, the trial court sentenced Davis to sixty years imprisonment.
Davis now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[9] Davis’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support
his conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences supporting the conviction and will neither assess witness credibility
nor reweigh the evidence. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We
will affirm unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. To convict Davis of murder, the State
was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or
intentionally killed Rees. I.C. § 35-42-1-1(1).
[10] Davis does not deny that he was present at the time Rees was murdered. But
he maintains that the evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
he was the person who shot Rees. We disagree. A conviction may be sustained
upon the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. Williams v. State, 700
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2363 | May 16, 2019 Page 4 of 5
N.E.2d 784, 787 (Ind. 1998). Here, Muhammad testified that he observed an
encounter between a white man and two Black men; one of the two Black men
was thin, wearing a t-shirt and jeans, and the other husky, wearing dark-colored
clothes. Muhammad stated that he heard a popping sound, looked up, and saw
the thin Black man holding a revolver pointed at Rees; he then heard a second
popping sound, heard Rees scream, and saw the other two men flee on nearby
bicycles.
[11] The trial court explicitly found Muhammad’s testimony to be vital and credible.
This testimony, alone, would suffice to support the conviction. But at trial,
Davis himself corroborated much of Muhammad’s testimony, including the
descriptions of himself and Loritts and their respective clothing. To the extent
that Davis’s testimony conflicts with Muhammad’s, it was for the trial court to
resolve the conflict by assessing the credibility of the witnesses. E.g., Whited v.
State, 645 N.E.2d 1138, 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). Furthermore, at Davis’s
first interview with police, he lied about nearly every salient fact related to
Rees’s death. He also instructed his girlfriend to lie about his whereabouts at
the time of the shooting. It would be reasonable for a factfinder to find that the
inferences drawn from this evidence further supported Davis’s guilt. Davis’s
arguments amount to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we may
not do. The evidence is sufficient.
[12] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2363 | May 16, 2019 Page 5 of 5