Opinion
24A-CR-940
10-09-2024
Eric M. Underwood-McCarrol, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
Attorney for Appellant Thomas C. Allen Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Alexandria Sons Deputy Attorney General Savannah L. Mundy Certified Legal Intern Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Allen Superior Court The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D05-2302-MR-7
Attorney for Appellant
Thomas C. Allen
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Alexandria Sons
Deputy Attorney General
Savannah L. Mundy
Certified Legal Intern
Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Tavitas, Judge.
Case Summary
[¶1] Following a jury trial, Eric Underwood-McCarrol was convicted of murder, a felony. Underwood-McCarrol appeals and argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.
Issue
[¶2] Underwood-McCarrol presents one issue for our review, which we restate as whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Underwood-McCarrol's conviction for murder.
Facts
[¶3] In 2023, Joyce Moore lived in an apartment at the Waterloo Gardens apartment complex in Fort Wayne with her husband, Ralph Moore, and their twelve-year-old nephew, whom they were trying to adopt. Shortly before noon on February 22, 2023, the day before the Moores' fortieth wedding anniversary, Ralph heard loud knocking at the front door. He also heard a loud bang. When Ralph went to investigate, he saw Joyce lying on the floor. Ralph initially thought Joyce had fallen, but when he got closer, he saw that she was bleeding profusely from her head and neck area. Ralph called 911 and waited for first responders to arrive. EMTs arrived and quickly determined that Joyce was dead. A subsequent autopsy revealed that Joyce died from a gunshot wound to the back of her head.
[¶4] At approximately the same time, Kathleen Richards, who also lived at Waterloo Gardens, looked outside and saw a man dressed in all black, who appeared to be "a little suspicious." Tr. Vol. III p. 131. Richards looked away from the window for a few seconds, and then she heard the sound of gunshots. Richards then looked out her window again and saw the same man "hugging the building." Id. Richards also called 911 and reported the gunshots.
[¶5] Law enforcement responded to the scene and observed Joyce deceased, lying just inside her front door. Law enforcement found a 9mm shell casing outside the Moores' apartment; this shell casing was manufactured by ZSR, which is a "unique" brand. Id. at 99. A security camera from a nearby church recorded a light tan Mercury Grand Marquis leaving the area of Waterloo Gardens around the time of the shooting. Security video from Waterloo Gardens also recorded a man wearing all black clothing and white shoes at the apartment complex minutes before the shooting.
[¶6] Clarence Robinson, another Waterloo Gardens resident, identified the man in the security footage as Underwood-McCarrol, who had lived in the apartment directly across from the Moores in the recent past. Robinson also told the police that he had sold a tan Mercury Grand Marquis to Underwood-McCarrol a few months prior to the shooting. Police later asked Richards to look at a photo lineup to see if she recognized the shooter. Although she did recognize one of the people in the lineup as Underwood-McCarrol, Richards did not identify him at that time due to fear.
[¶7] The police obtained a search warrant for Underwood-McCarrol's home and vehicle. Later in the evening, police located and pulled over Underwood-McCarrol in his Mercury Grand Marquis. Officers found black pants and white shoes inside Underwood-McCarrol's car. The police took Underwood-McCarrol to the police station and interviewed him about the murder. At first, Underwood-McCarrol told the detectives that he was not at Waterloo Gardens on the day of the shooting. He later admitted, however, that he had gone there before going to work. Underwood-McCarrol also told the detectives that he did not know about the murder. Underwood-McCarrol's mother, however, had texted him earlier that day and stated, "A lady that lived across the street from you [at Waterloo Gardens] got killed today at 11:30 this morning. I hope it's not the one I met that had custody of her nephew." Id. at 168; State's Ex. 197. Underwood-McCarrol responded, "Damn." Tr. Vol. III p. 168.
[¶8] Police also searched Underwood-McCarrol's home, where he lived with his mother. There, they found two 9mm handguns in Underwood-McCarrol's mother's nightstand. Subsequent ballistics testing showed that the shell casing found outside the Moores' apartment had been fired from one of the handguns found in Underwood-McCarrol's home. Police also found an ammunition magazine loaded with ten rounds of 9mm ammunition manufactured by ZSR.
[¶9] Further investigation revealed that Underwood-McCarrol's cellphone had connected to a cell tower near Waterloo Gardens at 11:03 a.m., 11:08 a.m., and 11:33 a.m. on the day of the murder. The phone then connected to a cell tower near Underwood-McCarrol's home at 12:18 p.m. A search of Underwood-McCarrol's phone revealed that, on the night of the murder, he searched the internet for "Fort Wayne news," and visited a web page titled, "Woman dead in shooting at southeast Fort Wayne apartment." Id. at 170; State's Ex. 198. The investigation revealed no motive for the shooting.
[¶10] On March 2, 2023, the State charged Underwood-McCarrol with murder, a felony, and alleged that he used a firearm in the commission of the offense. While in jail awaiting trial, Underwood-McCarrol made several recorded jail calls. In one of these calls, Underwood-McCarrol instructed the person on the other end of the line to write down that: the person owed Underwood-McCarrol money for gasoline; Underwood-McCarrol picked the person up near Waterloo Gardens; and they drove away and saw "four Black men" walking down the street. State's Ex. 200. He later called the same person and said that he had "shortened" this story and would send the person letters in the mail. Id. Police intercepted the letter, which contained a list of tasks for the recipient to complete. In another jail call, Underwood-McCarrol told the person to whom he was speaking, "Wanna help me beat this? You might have to talk to a couple suits. I'll send you everything you need." Id. He also stated on two other calls that he would pay someone "900 Gs" to "tell a story." Id.
[¶11] A jury trial was held on January 9-12, 2024. At trial, Richards identified Underwood-McCarrol as the man she had seen outside her apartment immediately before and after the shooting. Robinson testified that he sold the Mercury to Underwood-McCarrol and identified him as the man on the security camera. At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury found Underwood- McCarrol guilty as charged and found that he used a firearm in the commission of the offense. At a sentencing hearing on March 8, 2024, the trial court sentenced Underwood-McCarrol to sixty years on the murder conviction, to which the court added fifteen years for the firearms enhancement. Underwood-McCarrol now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[¶12] Underwood-McCarrol claims that the State failed to present evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the person who shot and killed the victim. "Claims of insufficient evidence 'warrant a deferential standard, in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility.'" Stubbers v. State, 190 N.E.3d 424, 429 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022) (quoting Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256, 262 (Ind. 2020)), trans. denied. On appeal, "[w]e consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence." Id. (citing Powell, 151 N.E.3d at 262). "'We will affirm a conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value that would lead a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,'" and we will affirm a conviction "'unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (citing Powell, 151 N.E.3d at 262). Thus, it is not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; instead, the evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. (citing Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007); Sutton v. State, 167 N.E.3d 800, 801 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021)).
[¶13] To convict Underwood-McCarrol of murder, the State had to prove that he knowingly or intentionally killed Joyce Moore. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1). Underwood-McCarrol does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that Joyce was shot and killed. Underwood-McCarrol claims only that the State failed to prove that he was the person who shot and killed Joyce. We disagree.
[¶14] The State presented evidence that Richards saw Underwood-McCarrol at the apartment complex around the time of the shooting, wearing all black. After hearing the gunshots, Richards saw Underwood-McCarrol "hugging" the building in an apparent attempt to avoid detection. Tr. Vol. III p. 131. Robinson identified Underwood-McCarrol as the man depicted in the security footage wearing all black with white shoes. Black pants and white shoes were found inside Underwood-McCarrol's car. Robinson sold a tan Mercury Grand Marquis to Underwood-McCarrol a few months prior to the shooting, and a car matching this description was seen in security footage near Waterloo Gardens at the time of the shooting. A shell casing found outside the victim's apartment was determined to have been fired from a handgun found in Underwood-McCarrol's home, and a magazine loaded with the same caliber and brand of 9mm ammunition was also found at Underwood-McCarrol's home. Underwood-McCarrol initially told detectives that he had not been at Waterloo Gardens on the day of the murder, but later admitted that he had been there. He also lied about not knowing about the murder. Underwood-McCarrol's cell phone records confirmed that he was in the area at the time of the shooting, and he used his phone to search for news about the shooting. Lastly, Underwood-McCarrol made calls from jail that seemed to encourage people to lie about the case.
Underwood-McCarrol contends that the white shoes found in his car do not match the white shoes worn by the person depicted in the security footage because the shoes in his car had three black stripes, whereas, he claims, the shoes worn by the person in the security footage do not. It is difficult to discern in the security footage whether the shoes have stripes or not. It was for the jury to determine whether the shoes were the same. See Quinn v. State, 126 N.E.3d 924, 928 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019) (noting that, unless video evidence indisputably contradicts the jury's factual determination, we will not disturb the jury's verdict) (citing Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 699 (Ind. 1997)).
[¶15] From this evidence, the jury could readily conclude that Underwood-McCarrol was the person who shot and killed Joyce Moore. Underwood-McCarrol's arguments that Richards was an unreliable witness and that there was no DNA or other physical evidence connecting him to the crime are merely requests that we reweigh the evidence, judge the credibility of the witnesses, and come to a conclusion other than that reached by the jury, which we cannot do. Stubbers, 190 N.E.3d at 429 (citing Powell, 151 N.E.3d at 262). And even if we agreed with Underwood-McCarrol that his conviction was supported only by circumstantial evidence, a murder conviction may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone. Snow v. State, 118 N.E.3d 50, 61 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019) (citing Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 134 (Ind. 2016)), trans. denied. Thus, Underwood-Carrol's conviction is supported by sufficient evidence.
Conclusion
[¶16] The State presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Underwood-McCarrol was the person who shot and killed Joyce Moore. We, accordingly, affirm the trial court's judgment.
[¶17] Affirmed.
May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.