Jemery Alan Riddle v,. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 30 2017, 10:10 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
Joseph P. Hunter Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Muncie, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeremy Alan Riddle, May 30, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
27A05-1606-CR-1360
v. Appeal from the Grant Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey D. Todd,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
27D01-1512-MR-2
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Jeremy Alan Riddle (“Riddle”) was convicted in Grant Superior Court of
murder, Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 1 of 10
felon, and Level 6 felony theft. Riddle was ordered to serve an aggregate
seventy-seven-year sentence in the Department of Correction. Riddle appeals
his convictions and argues that the trial court denied him the right to a fair trial
by admitting gruesome crime scene photographs and autopsy photographs into
evidence.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Riddle and Wendell Donaldson (“Donaldson”) were neighbors and
acquaintances. On November 11, 2015, Riddle went to Donaldson’s home and
shot him in the back of the head. Donaldson fell to the floor in his kitchen and
died instantly. Riddle put a blanket over Donaldson’s head and ransacked the
home. Donaldson’s pants pockets were also turned inside out. Riddle stole a log
splitter, push mower, Donaldson’s phone, and hydrocodone pills.
[4] Later that afternoon, Riddle spoke to his wife, who was incarcerated and
expecting Riddle to post her bond. Riddle stated he had the bond money but
that he had done something “bad” and “real serious” to get the money. Ex.
Vol., State’s Ex. 97. Riddle said he was trying to lay low and “every day I don’t
get the electric chair or lethal injection is a victory in my book.” Id.
[5] On November 14, 2015, Riddle sold a push mower and log splitter to a local
pawn shop. Riddle begged the pawn shop owner to purchase the items because
he needed money. The push mower was Donaldson’s, but the log splitter
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 2 of 10
belonged to Stephen Gray (“Gray”). Gray was Donaldson’s good friend and
had loaned the log splitter to him.
[6] On November 18, 2015, Gray stopped by Donaldson’s home to visit with him,
but did not receive an answer when he knocked on the door. He also sent text
messages to Donaldson but did receive any response. On November 22, 2015,
Gray returned to Donaldson’s home because he had not heard from him and
wanted to retrieve his log splitter. Gray’s knock on the door went unanswered,
and no smoke was coming from the wood-stove chimney pipe, the residence’s
heat source. Gray was concerned and entered the home through a window
Donaldson kept partially open to keep the temperature regulated inside the
residence.
[7] Gray knew something was amiss immediately because the home was
ransacked. Gray then saw Donaldson’s body on the kitchen floor. Donaldson
was on his back with a blanket covering his head. Gray quickly discerned that
Donaldson was dead. He left the residence immediately and called the police.
[8] When the police arrived, they discovered that Donaldson had suffered a fatal
gunshot to his head and neck. The bullet entered at the back of his head,
severed his spinal cord, and exited through his right eye. He was shot at close
range and a spent casing of a 9 millimeter round was found next to his body.
[9] Donaldson’s body was in an advanced state of decomposition. His pants
pockets were turned inside out and were empty. The police were unable to
locate Donaldson’s cell phone, and his prescription bottle of hydrocodone
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 3 of 10
sitting on the kitchen counter, which had been filled on October 25, 2015, with
a 30-day supply, was empty.
[10] A glass containing orange juice was also on the kitchen counter. The glass was
tested for DNA and fingerprints. Riddle’s fingerprints and DNA were found on
the glass. The police also found a 9 mm handgun hidden inside a well casing on
the property where Riddle lived in November 2015. The spent casing located
next to Donaldson’s body had been fired by that handgun. A minor DNA
profile found on the gun was consistent with Riddle’s DNA.
[11] On December 31, 2015, Riddle was charged with murder, Level 4 felony
possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and Level 6 felony theft. A
three-day jury trial commenced on May 16, 2016. At trial, Riddle objected to
the admission of several crime scene photographs and several autopsy
photographs. The trial court admitted the photographs over his objection.
[12] Riddle was found guilty as charged. At sentencing, Riddle was ordered to serve
an aggregate seventy-seven-year sentence. Specifically, he was ordered to serve
concurrent terms of sixty-five years and two and one-half years for the murder
and theft convictions and a consecutive twelve-year term for the possession of a
firearm conviction. Riddle now appeals.
Standard of Review
[13] Riddle argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted
numerous crime scene and autopsy photographs into evidence. “A trial court
has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and we will
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 4 of 10
disturb its rulings only where it is shown that the court abused that discretion.”
Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 675 (Ind. 2013). “An abuse of discretion
occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of
the facts and circumstances before it.” Id.Discussion and Decision
[14] “[G]enerally, photographs depicting the crime scene and victim’s body are
admissible as long as they are relevant and competent aids to the jury.” Id. at
676 (quoting Woods v. State, 677 N.E.2d 499, 504 (Ind. 1997)). “Although a
photograph may arouse the passions of the jurors, it is admissible unless ‘its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.’”
Id. (quoting Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 406 (Ind. 2000)). “Even gory and
revolting photographs may be admissible as long as they are relevant to some
material issue or show scenes that a witness could describe orally.” Id. (quoting
Amburgey v. State, 696 N.E.2d 44, 45 (Ind. 1998)).
[15] Riddle argues that the repetitive photographs of the crime scene were so graphic
and gruesome that their probative value was substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice. Riddle argues that the autopsy photographs should
not have been admitted because Donaldson’s body was shown in an altered and
manipulated state.
A. Crime Scene Photographs
[16] Riddle challenges the admission of the crime scene photographs in exhibits 21,
22, 24, 36, 37, and 41. Riddle argues that the gruesome photographs graphically
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 5 of 10
depicting the wounds to Donaldson’s face and head were repetitive of other
photographs admitted. Therefore, the photographs “had little, if any,
interpretive value for the jury that was not adequately portrayed in other
photos.” Appellant’s Br. at 13. Riddle notes that two of the photographs were
not mentioned in any witness testimony.
[17] The photographs are graphic and gruesome, particularly the enlarged images of
the wound to Donaldson’s eye and head where the bullet exited his body. The
State argues that the photographs were not unfairly prejudicial because they
were taken from different angles and were used to show the gunshot wound, the
decomposition of Donaldson’s body to establish the time of the murder, and the
position of his body near the window of the kitchen sink.
[18] At trial, the State argued that the bullet was not recovered because it likely went
through the kitchen window after exiting Donaldson’s body. A photograph was
also admitted to show where the bullet exited the kitchen window. Ex. Vol.,
State’s Ex. 9. Therefore, the position of Donaldson’s body relative to the
kitchen window was relevant and photographs taken from different angles in
the kitchen gave the jury a more accurate view of the crime scene. Although
there was no witness testimony about the photograph in exhibit 36, it shows a
more focused and close-up image of Donaldson’s pants pockets turned inside
out. This fact was relevant to the State’s argument that the motive for the
murder was theft. These photographs were all relevant to issues argued by the
parties at trial and aided the jury in understanding the position of Donaldson’s
body in the crime scene and how he was shot. For these reasons, the probative
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 6 of 10
value of the photographs was not substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice, and therefore, the trial court properly admitted the
photographs in Exhibits 21, 22, 36, 37 and 41.
[19] The only challenged photograph that was not referenced in testimony and was
repetitive of other admitted photographs is the image in Exhibit 24. The image
is a graphic and gruesome enlarged photograph of the victim’s head. However,
it is no more graphic or disturbing than any other properly admitted exhibit.
[20] For the sake of argument, if we concluded that the trial court abused its
discretion by admitting the photograph in Exhibit 24, the error would be
harmless.
Errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence are to be
disregarded as harmless error unless they affect the substantial
rights of the party. To determine whether an error in the
introduction of evidence affected the appellant's substantial
rights, this Court must assess the probable impact of that
evidence upon the jury.
Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 628 (Ind. 2002) (citations omitted). The
improper admission of evidence is deemed harmless if there is substantial
independent evidence of guilt supporting a conviction such that we can say
there is no substantial likelihood that the questioned evidence contributed to the
conviction. Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1238 (Ind. 2012).
[21] At trial, Riddle argued that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that he shot Donaldson. It was undisputed that Donaldson was shot in his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 7 of 10
kitchen and he died as a result. We cannot conclude that the erroneous
admission of one photograph containing an image of Donaldson’s gunshot
wound had a significant impact on the jury because the image was presented to
the jury in several properly admitted photographs. Moreover, substantial
independent evidence of guilt supports Riddle’s murder conviction. Therefore,
even if the photograph is Exhibit 24 was improperly admitted into evidence,
Riddle has not established reversible error.
B. Autopsy Photographs
[22] “Autopsy photographs often present unique problems because the pathologist
has manipulated the body in some way during the autopsy.” Halliburton, 1
N.E.3d at 677 (citing Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 627 (Ind. 2002)). “And
autopsy photographs are generally inadmissible if they show the body in an
altered condition.” Id. “However, ‘there are situations where some alteration of
the body is allowed where necessary to demonstrate the testimony being
given.’” Id. (quoting Swingley v. State, 739 N.E.2d 132, 134 (Ind. 2000)). When a
body is altered for a photograph, the concern is that the handiwork of the
physician may be imputed to the accused and “‘thereby render the defendant
responsible in the minds of the jurors for the cuts, incisions, and indignity of an
autopsy.’” Swingley, 739 N.E.2d at 133 (quoting Allen v. State, 686 N.E.2d 760(1997)).
[23] Riddle argues that that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the
challenged autopsy photographs because Donaldson’s body is manipulated and
altered in the images. Both exhibits 71 and 72 show the wound where the bullet
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 8 of 10
entered the back of Donaldson’s head or neck, and the pathologist testified that
he rubbed some of the skin away around the wound so that he could see it more
clearly. Tr. p. 283. The pathologist also did so to take tissue samples to look for
evidence of stippling, which occurs when the victim is shot at close range. Tr.
pp. 283-84. In the photographs, the pathologist’s gloved hands are also
manipulating the back of Donaldson’s neck and holding his hair away from the
wound so that it was more visible.
[24] The State argues that the alteration of Donaldson’s wound “is not something
that would have been noticeable but for the pathologist’s testimony, and it is
not something that made the injury more graphic or disturbing than it otherwise
would have been.” Appellee’s Br. at 16. Moreover, the pathologist manipulated
Donaldson’s body only to more clearly display and demonstrate the injury. Id.[25] The pathologist explained to the jury what he had done and why the alteration
was necessary to examine Donaldson’s injuries. The alteration and
manipulation shown in the photographs was minimal. Therefore, it is unlikely
that the autopsy photographs confused the jury concerning the injuries caused
by Riddle when he shot Donaldson in the head and the pathologist’s minor
alternation of those injuries. Therefore, the probative value of the photographs
was not substantially outweighed by any prejudicial effect. For these reasons,
we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the
autopsy photographs.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 9 of 10
Conclusion
[26] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted into evidence the
challenged exhibits consisting of crime scene and autopsy photographs.
[27] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 10 of 10