Damion Martin v. State of Indiana ( 2013 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of Mar 06 2013, 9:08 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
ELLEN M. O’CONNOR GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Marion County Public Defender Office Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
RYAN D. JOHANNINGSMEIER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DAMION MARTIN, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1206-CR-473
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Grant W. Hawkins, Judge
Cause No. 49G05-1008-MR-63982
March 6, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NAJAM, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Damion Martin appeals his convictions for two counts of murder, felonies; one
count of aggravated battery, as a Class B felony; and three counts of battery, as Class C
felonies, following a jury trial. Martin presents a single issue for review, namely,
whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions.
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On the evening of August 2, 2010, Barbara Johnson had a birthday party for Willie
Battles at her home at 1268 West 32nd Street in Indianapolis. She lived there with her
boyfriend Michael Harris and her three children. Barbara’s mother, Prinsonia Johnson,
bicycled to the house with her boyfriend, Charles May, and stayed to help with the party.1
Robin Jones arrived at the birthday party around 9:00 p.m. Kendall Hill was
arriving at the party when Jones was leaving about an hour and a half later. Jones
believed Hill had been involved in the unsolved murder of her cousin, Stevie McElwain,
three years earlier. Hill and Jones argued about whether Hill had been involved, and Hill
was angry that Jones had been telling other people of her belief regarding Hill’s
involvement.
Eventually, Jones left for a block party a few blocks away at 26th Street and White
Street. The block party was in remembrance of LeRon Edwards, who had been killed a
year earlier. Jones was still upset about her altercation with Hill and spoke loudly to
“whoever [would] listen” about it. Transcript at 544. Jones eventually spoke with Terrell
1
We use first names to distinguish between people who share a common last name.
2
Chatman, saying she wanted to get a gun and kill Hill. Chatman attempted to calm Jones.
He was wearing a 9mm handgun in a holster and also had at the party an SKS rifle that
holds twenty-five 7.62 rounds. He had planned to do a twenty-one gun salute for
Edwards at the party. At one point, when Jones was behind Chatman, she grabbed his
handgun from the holster. Chatman grabbed the gun back and told her to get her own
gun.
Jones also told Devin Staten and Martin about her argument with Hill. Staten was
wearing a red shirt, and Martin was wearing a black and white bandana and a yellow t-
shirt with Edwards’ photo on it. Martin told Jones to “stop crying and to watch the news
and read the newspaper” the following day. Id. at 546.
Police came to the block party that night twice because of gunshots. Chatman did
not fire any shots, but at some point Jones gave him a ride to his mother’s house on 28th
Street to hide the rifle there. When Jones arrived back at the block party, she saw Martin,
Staten, and a third person she did not recognize. Martin and Staten had changed into
“dark clothing.” Id. at 552. Jones saw Tiffany Holifield give the keys to Holifield’s
mother’s car, a Chrysler 300, to Martin. The Chrysler was silver-grey or light green but
had a black front right quarter panel. Staten, Martin, and the third person got into the
Chrysler and drove away.
Back at the 32nd Street birthday party, between midnight and 1:00 a.m.,
seventeen-year-old K.M., Barbara’s daughter, saw a grey car with a “little piece” that was
black drive by the party a couple of times. Id. at 808. As Shanon Gammons was leaving
the party, she also saw Holifield’s mother’s Chrysler 300 drive past the house. Gammons
3
knew that car as one that Holifield often loaned out, had ridden in it herself, and
recognized it in part from the black front right quarter panel. Gammons noted that the car
was driving by very slowly. She saw Martin in the front passenger seat and Anton or
Antwan Williams2 in the back seat but did not see the driver.
After the car passed the house, the driver turned around and drove toward the
house again and stopped. Barbara’s son T.M. also saw a car “like a regular Charger” pull
up in the street in front of the party. Id. at 762. Gammons noted that the occupants now
wore masks and yelled that fact to the people at the party. The car stopped, and Martin,
wearing all dark colors, exited on the passenger side holding a “chopper” or “big gun[.]”
Id. at 1459. K.M. also saw the front passenger exit the vehicle, wearing a black bandana
over his face, and he heard the person say, “no witnesses.” Id. at 794.
Martin shot the “chopper” over the hood of the car toward the party, and the gun
“let off a thousand rounds.” Id. When the “chopper’s” first rounds stopped, Gammons
saw a handgun being shot out of the car’s back window, and then Martin fired more
rounds from the chopper. Gammons saw Barbara, Prinsonia, May, and others at the party
fall. When the shooting stopped, Gammons did not see where the car drove.
Shortly after midnight on August 3, Officers Jeremy Lee, Dustin Toussing, and
Scott Strietelmeier of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) were at
the 26th Street block party when they heard “a barrage of rapid gunfire” north of them.
The sound resembled that that would come from an assault rifle. The officers had
previously been dispatched to the 32nd Street birthday party that evening and headed
2
Anton and Antwan Williams are twins and Gammons could not determine which twin she saw
in the car.
4
there to investigate the sound of shots fired. When they arrived they found several people
at the party had been injured by gunfire, and two of the victims, Barbara and May, had
died. Officers found more than forty spent 7.62x39-mm casings at the party, all
manufactured by Wolf.
Martin did not return the Chrysler 300 that night directly to Holifield. Instead, he
telephoned and informed her that he had left her car on Roache Street. When Holifield
arrived at the car, she saw that it now had bullet holes and a flat tire. Unsure of what to
do, Holifield telephoned her mother, the owner of the car, and asked her to report it
stolen. Officers later recovered the Chrysler and found a burned black bandana in the
front seat. They also found spent .40-caliber casings in the back seat, and DNA taken
from the front passenger side door was consistent with Martin’s DNA.
On August 5, officers executed a search warrant at Martin’s residence. They
found a gun box and instruction manual for a Ruger. Casings that would be left by a .40-
caliber Ruger handgun would be consistent with those found in the back seat of the
Chrysler 300. And inside a hole in the basement ceiling, officers recovered a 7.62x39mm
cartridge manufactured by Wolf.
The State charged Martin with two counts of murder, felonies; one count of
attempted murder, a Class A felony; one count of conspiracy to commit murder, a Class
A felony; one count of aggravated battery, as a Class B felony; and three counts of
battery, as Class C felonies. A jury trial was held, and the jury returned a verdict finding
Martin guilty of two counts of murder, felonies; one count of aggravated battery, as a
Class B felony; and three counts of battery, as Class C felonies. The trial court sentenced
5
Martin to sixty years for each murder, fifteen years for aggravated battery, and seven
years for each count of battery, for an aggregate term of 135 years. Martin now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is challenged, we
neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we affirm if
there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the crime
from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 905-06 (Ind. 2005). It is the job of
the fact-finder to determine whether the evidence in a particular case sufficiently proves
each element of an offense, and we consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the
trial court’s ruling. Id. at 906.
Martin contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. To
prove the offense of murder, a felony, the State was required to show that Martin
knowingly or intentionally killed another human being. See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1).
To prove the offense of aggravated battery, the State was required to show that Martin
knowingly or intentional inflicted injury on a person that created a substantial risk of
death. See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.5. And to prove the offense of battery, the State was
required to show that Martin knowingly or intentionally touched another person in a rude,
insolent, or angry manner, namely, shooting and injuring three people. See Ind. Code §
35-42-2-1.
Martin challenges the State’s proof on the identity element of each offense. In
other words, he contends that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
6
Martin was one of the masked gunmen who shot into the crowd at the 32nd Street
birthday party. We cannot agree.
The evidence shows that Jones complained to Martin about her argument with
Hill, in which she accused him of involvement in her cousin’s death. In response, Martin
told Jones to “stop crying and to watch the news and read the newspaper” the following
day. Id. at 546. Martin had been wearing a yellow shirt and black-and-white bandana,
but a short time later Jones saw that he had changed from his yellow shirt into dark
clothing. She also saw him borrow the keys to Holifield’s mother’s Chrysler 300 and
ride away with Staten and another man. The Chrysler 300 was well known in the
neighborhood and often loaned out, and it was distinctive because it was a light color but
had a black front right quarter panel.
Shortly after midnight, a light car with a black front right quarter panel containing
three occupants drove slowly past the 32nd Street birthday party. Gammons recognized
Martin in the front passenger seat. The car turned around and approached the party
again, but this time the three occupants were wearing masks. The car stopped in front of
the party, and the passenger in the front passenger seat exited. He was wearing dark
clothing, was carrying a large gun or “chopper,” and fired two series of rapid gunfire into
the party crowd. The occupant of the back seat fired a hand gun out the window. When
the gunfire ended, the front passenger re-entered the car, and the men drove away.
Martin later called Holifield and told her where to find her car. When Holifield
found it, it was damaged by bullet holes and had a flat tire. Holifield had her mother
report the car stolen. Officers later found the car, towed it, and examined it. They found
7
DNA matching Martin’s on the front passenger door, a burned black bandana in the front
seat, and a spent .40-caliber casing in the back seat. Officers also executed a search
warrant on Martin’s home. They found a box and a manual for a Ruger handgun, and in
the basement ceiling they found a live 7.62x39mm shell manufactured by Wolf. The
shell casings found at the scene of the crime were also from 7.62x39mm shells
manufactured by Wolf. And while Martin was incarcerated on the instant charges,
another cell block prisoner, Erick Williams, saw Martin watching a news piece on the
shooting and heard another inmate say, “I don’t see how they know who it is, we wore
masks.” Transcript at 1613. Williams was never housed with Antwan Williams or
Staten, who were also charged for the shooting, but he was housed for a time with Martin
and later identified Martin or another man as the speaker. The evidence and reasonable
inferences from the same are sufficient to support Martin’s convictions.
Still, Martin contends that the evidence is speculative. In particular, he challenges
several aspects of the evidence. Most, such as the following arguments, amount to a
request that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. Wright, 828 N.E.2d at 905-
06. For example, Martin admits that he had previously been in the Chrysler 300 but was
not in it when the shooting occurred. He also asserts that there is no way to know when
his DNA was left there. He points to evidence showing that he had been wearing a
yellow shirt at the 26th Street party, not a dark shirt, and he argues that there was no
direct evidence linking the ammunition and Ruger box and manual found at his home to
the weapons that were used in the shooting. Because we cannot reweigh the evidence,
Martin’s arguments on these points must fail.
8
Martin also challenges the credibility of certain witnesses and evidence. In
particular, he contends that Gammons had initially denied knowing the occupants of the
car involved in the shooting. He also calls into doubt Williams’ identification of Martin
as the person who said “we wore masks” in response to a news story on the shooting
aired at the jail. And he contends that alibi evidence shows he could not have been at the
shooting. But, again, we cannot judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. Martin’s
contentions again must fail.
In sum, the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom show that Martin was
one of the shooters at the 32nd Street birthday party. As such, the evidence is sufficient
to support his convictions for two counts of murder, felonies; one count of aggravated
battery, as a Class B felony; and three counts of battery, as Class C felonies, and,
therefore, we affirm Martin’s convictions.
Affirmed.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.
9