Damoine Wilcoxson v. State of Indiana

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 29, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CR-1882
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED Aug 29 2019, 5:34 am

CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Matthew D. Anglemeyer Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Attorney General Appellate Division Caroline G. Templeton Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Damoine Wilcoxson, August 29, 2019 Appellant/Cross-Appellee/Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1882 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee/Cross-Appellant/Plaintiff Mark Stoner, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G06-1612-F1-47060

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Case Summary [1] A jury found Damoine Wilcoxson guilty of two counts of attempted murder

and one count of criminal recklessness for shooting up two police stations in

Indianapolis. The trial court, however, entered only a single attempted-murder

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-1882 | August 29, 2019 Page 1 of 12 conviction, along with a criminal-recklessness conviction, finding that the two

attempted-murder counts merge. The court then sentenced Wilcoxson to thirty-

seven years in prison. Wilcoxson appeals, arguing that the trial court should

not have admitted certain evidence at his trial and that therefore his convictions

should be reversed. We disagree and affirm his convictions.

[2] The State cross-appeals, contending that the trial court erred by merging the

two attempted-murder counts and entering only one conviction. Wilcoxson

responds that the State is not authorized to bring such an appeal and that, even

if it is, merger of the two counts is proper in this case. We hold that (1) the

State is authorized to bring its cross-appeal and (2) the trial court erred by

merging the two attempted-murder counts. We therefore remand this matter to

the trial court for the entry of a conviction and sentence on the second count.

Facts and Procedural History [3] Around 11:00 p.m. on October 4, 2016, a person shot up the Indianapolis

Metropolitan Police Department’s Northwest District building while Sergeant

Laura Weida was inside. Thirty spent shell casings and a handwritten note

were found in front of the building. The note included threats against “white”

people and references to “Yahuah.” Ex. 57A.

[4] Nine days later, at about 11:00 p.m. on October 13, a person shot up IMPD’s

North District building. At the time, Officers Stephen Jones and Justin Keehn

were in a room doing paperwork. The lights were on, and the blinds were open

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-1882 | August 29, 2019 Page 2 of 12 so that the officers, who were both in uniform, could be seen from outside. One

bullet came through a window and passed within inches of Officer Keehn’s

right ear. Outside the building, sixteen spent shell casings were found in an

area from which the shooter would have been able to see Officers Jones and

Keehn sitting inside. In addition to the bullet hole in the window, police found

two bullet holes in the exterior wall of the building, a bullet hole in a dumpster

outside the building, and a bullet hole in a car parked near the building. Also

found was a handwritten note that, like the note found outside the Northwest

District building, contained threats against “white” people and references to

“Yahuah.” Ex. 143A.

[5] Testing revealed that the thirty shell casings found outside the Northwest

District building and the sixteen shell casings found outside the North District

building were all fired from the same gun. Moreover, Wilcoxson’s DNA was

found on one of the casings recovered from the Northwest District building and

one of the casings recovered from the North District building.

[6] On October 31, an IMPD SWAT team went to the apartment where Wilcoxson

had been staying to take him into custody on one or more unrelated warrants.

As the team announced its arrival and attempted to enter the apartment,

Wilcoxson began shooting—allegedly in the direction of the SWAT officers.

Eventually, he surrendered. A handgun and shell casings were found inside the

apartment, and testing showed that the gun was the same one used during the

October 4 and October 13 shootings. Handwritten notes referring to “Yahuah”

were also found in the apartment. Exs. 228-232A. Handwriting analysis

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-1882 | August 29, 2019 Page 3 of 12 showed that all or parts of the notes from the Northwest District, the North

District, and the apartment were probably written by Wilcoxson. A Facebook

page maintained by Wilcoxson also included references to “Yahuah.”

[7] The State charged Wilcoxson in relation to all three incidents under a single

cause number. Regarding the October 4 shooting, the State charged Wilcoxson

with Level 5 felony criminal recklessness. Regarding the October 13 shooting,

the State charged Wilcoxson with two counts of attempted murder—one

relating to Officer Keehn and one relating to Officer Jones. And regarding the

October 31 SWAT incident, the State charged Wilcoxson with a single count of

attempted murder relating to the SWAT officers.

[8] Wilcoxson moved to sever the charges, asking that three separate trials be held

for the three incidents. The trial court ruled that the charges arising from the

October 4 and October 13 shootings could be tried together but agreed to sever

the attempted-murder charge arising from the October 31 SWAT incident.

[9] Shortly after the trial court ordered the severance, the State filed notice that it

intended to take the October 4 and October 13 charges to trial first and to

present, during that trial, evidence that Wilcoxson shot at police when they

went to arrest him on October 31. The State asserted this evidence was

admissible under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b), which provides that evidence

of crimes, wrongs, or other acts may be admissible to prove, among other

things, “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,

absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” The State argued that evidence that

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-1882 | August 29, 2019 Page 4 of 12 Wilcoxson shot at police on October 31 “supports the identification of the

defendant as the perpetrator” of the October 4 and October 13 shootings, “as

well as his motive, intent, preparation and plan in committing” those shootings.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 164-65. Wilcoxson objected, and the trial court

ruled that the State could present evidence that Wilcoxson fired a gun when the

police arrived to take him into custody but not that he shot at the officers.

[10] During trial, the court twice admonished the jury that evidence that Wilcoxson

fired a gun during the October 31 incident was relevant to prove Wilcoxson’s

motive, identity, and consciousness of guilt with respect to the October 4 and

October 13 shootings but not to prove that he has any particular character trait.

Tr. Vol. III pp. 220, 236. The court later gave the jury a final instruction that

largely tracked those two admonishments, adding that the evidence could also

be used to determine Wilcoxson’s intent. Appellant’s App. Vol. III p. 38.

[11] The jury found Wilcoxson guilty on all charges being tried: one count of

criminal recklessness for the October 4 shooting and two counts of attempted

murder for the October 13 shooting. The trial court entered a conviction on the

criminal-recklessness count but entered a conviction on only one of the two

attempted-murder counts, finding that those two counts “merge.” Tr. Vol. IV

p. 212. The court sentenced Wilcoxson to a fully executed term of thirty-five

years on the attempted-murder conviction and a consecutive term of five years,

with two years executed and three years suspended to probation, on the

criminal-recklessness conviction, for a total of thirty-seven years in prison and

three years of probation.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-1882 | August 29, 2019 Page 5 of 12 [12] Wilcoxson appeals, and the State cross-appeals.1

Discussion and Decision [13] Wilcoxson contends that the trial court should not have allowed the State to

present evidence that he fired a gun when the SWAT team came to arrest him

on October 31. In its cross-appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred by

merging the two attempted-murder counts and entering only one conviction

after the jury found Wilcoxson guilty on both counts.

I. Wilcoxson’s Appeal [14] Wilcoxson challenges the trial court’s admission of evidence that he fired a gun

during the SWAT incident on October 31, which the court allowed pursuant to

Evidence Rule 404(b). That rule provides that evidence of a crime, wrong, or

other act “is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that

on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character,” but

it “may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity,

intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of

accident.” Ind. Evidence Rule 404(b). Evidence Rule 403 provides, in turn,

that evidence, even if relevant, should be excluded “if its probative value is

substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair

1 The State eventually dismissed the severed attempted-murder charge relating to the October 31 SWAT incident but refiled it under a new cause number in April 2019. See No. 49G06-1904-F1-015722. That case is set for trial this October.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-1882 | August 29, 2019 Page 6 of 12 prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly

presenting cumulative evidence.” Therefore, when the State seeks to use

evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act, the court must (1) determine whether

the evidence is relevant to a matter at issue other than the defendant’s

propensity to commit the charged act and, if so, (2) balance the probative value

of the evidence against its prejudicial effect. Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215, 221

(Ind. 1997). We review a trial court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. Spencer

v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1053, 1057 (Ind. 1999).

[15] The trial court ruled that evidence that Wilcoxson fired a gun during the

October 31 incident was relevant to four issues with respect to the October 4

and October 13 shootings: (1) motive, (2) identity, (3) consciousness of guilt,

and (4) intent. Wilcoxson challenges all four grounds. We do not reach the

issues of identity and intent, as we affirm the trial court’s ruling on the issues of

motive and consciousness of guilt.

[16] Regarding motive, we agree with the State that Wilcoxson firing a gun when

police went to arrest him tends to prove that he harbors significant hostility

toward police. That hostility, in turn, strongly suggests a motive for the

October 4 and October 13 shootings. See Hicks, 690 N.E.2d at 222 (holding that

defendant’s hostility toward victim was relevant to prove motive for murder).

[17] As for consciousness of guilt, Wilcoxson does not dispute that an attempt to

avoid arrest is evidence of a guilty conscience. See, e.g., Myers v. State, 27

N.E.3d 1069, 1077 (Ind. 2015). Instead, he notes that at the time of the SWAT

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-1882 | August 29, 2019 Page 7 of 12 incident, besides his “possible involvement in the police district shootings,” he

“also had two unrelated warrants out for his arrest.” Appellant’s Br. p. 22.2 He

contends, “While he may have shot because of his involvement in the district

shootings, it is equally possible that he shot to avoid arrest on the other

warrants.” Id. But the fact that Wilcoxson might have had a consciousness of

guilt with regard to other conduct does not mean that he did not also have a

consciousness of guilt with regard to the October 4 and October 13 shootings.

[18] Concerning the balancing required under Evidence Rule 403, there was no

doubt that Wilcoxson would be prejudiced by evidence that he fired a gun when

the SWAT team went to arrest him. However, trial courts are given wide

latitude in weighing the probative value of evidence against the prejudice

caused by its admission, Bishop v. State, 40 N.E.3d 935, 952 (Ind. Ct. App.

2015), trans. denied, and Wilcoxson has not convinced us that the trial court

abused its discretion in this regard. While the State was allowed to present

evidence that Wilcoxson fired a gun, the court barred the State from presenting

evidence that he shot at the officers. Furthermore, twice during trial and once

again in final instructions the trial court admonished the jury that the evidence

of the October 31 shooting could not be considered to establish that Wilcoxson

2 In August 2016, a warrant for Wilcoxson’s arrest was issued in a Marion County domestic-violence case (charges that were dismissed after this case was filed). See No. 49G17-1608-F6-30211. Then, on October 31, 2016, the same day as the SWAT incident, a warrant for Wilcoxson’s arrest was issued in Boone County in relation to the September 2016 shooting death of an elderly man in Zionsville. See No. 06D01-1610-MR-249. Earlier this year, Wilcoxson was convicted of murder in that case and sentenced to sixty-five years, to be served consecutive to his sentence in this case. That case is currently on appeal to this Court. See No. 19A- CR-1021.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-1882 | August 29, 2019 Page 8 of 12 is a person of poor character more likely to shoot at law enforcement. Such

instructions minimize the potential prejudice to the defendant. See Johnson v.

State, 722 N.E.2d 382, 385 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

[19] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that

Wilcoxson fired a gun when the SWAT team went to arrest him.

II. State’s Cross-Appeal [20] In its cross-appeal, the State asserts that the trial court erred by merging the two

attempted-murder counts and entering only one conviction. Initially, we briefly

address Wilcoxson’s argument that the State’s cross-appeal is not authorized by

Indiana Code section 35-38-4-2, the statute that sets forth the limited

circumstances in which the State is allowed to appeal in criminal cases.3 In

3 The statute provides: Appeals to the supreme court or to the court of appeals, if the court rules so provide, may be taken by the state in the following cases: (1) From an order granting a motion to dismiss one (1) or more counts of an indictment or information. (2) From an order or judgment for the defendant, upon the defendant’s motion for discharge because of delay of the defendant’s trial not caused by the defendant’s act, or upon the defendant’s plea of former jeopardy, presented and ruled upon prior to trial. (3) From an order granting a motion to correct errors. (4) Upon a question reserved by the state, if the defendant is acquitted. (5) From an order granting a motion to suppress evidence, if the ultimate effect of the order is to preclude further prosecution of one (1) or more counts of an information or indictment. (6) From any interlocutory order if the trial court certifies and the court on appeal or a judge thereof finds on petition that:

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-1882 | August 29, 2019 Page 9 of 12 State v. Monticello Developers, Inc., a jury found the defendant guilty of criminal

recklessness, but the trial court, instead of entering a judgment of conviction

against the defendant, entered a judgment on the evidence in favor of the

defendant. 527 N.E.2d 1111 (Ind. 1988). The State appealed, and our Supreme

Court noted that the State’s appeal presented a “legal question” rather than an

issue of fact and expressly held that, as such, “the State may seek review and

remedy under Ind. Code § 35-38-4-2.” Id. at 1112. Here, the State’s cross-

appeal asserts that the trial court erred by merging the two attempted-murder

counts. This is most certainly a “legal question,” as Wilcoxson himself

acknowledges. Appellant’s Br. p. 23; Cross-Appellee’s Br. p. 10. Accordingly,

we conclude that the State’s cross-appeal is properly before us.4

[21] On the merits, the State’s argument is very straightforward: merger of the two

attempted-murder counts is improper because the jury found Wilcoxson guilty

on both counts based on evidence that he fired multiple shots in the direction of

(A) the appellant will suffer substantial expense, damage, or injury if the order is erroneous and the determination thereof is withheld until after judgment; (B) the order involves a substantial question of law, the early determination of which will promote a more orderly disposition of the case; or (C) the remedy by appeal after judgment is otherwise inadequate. Ind. Code § 35-38-4-2. 4 The State cites several other cases in which our Supreme Court or this Court, without explicitly addressing the appealability issue, entertained the merits of a State cross-appeal challenging a trial court’s decision to not enter a conviction on a count on which the defendant was found guilty. See Kendall v. State, 849 N.E.2d 1109 (Ind. 2006); Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. 2005); Kelly v. State, 719 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. 1999), reh’g denied; Dilts v. State, 49 N.E.3d 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-1882 | August 29, 2019 Page 10 of 12 two different officers. In response, Wilcoxson contends that the trial court’s

merger decision is sustainable under two double-jeopardy doctrines. First, he

cites the continuous-crime doctrine, which prohibits multiple convictions for

actions that are “so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose,

and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction.” Walker v. State,

932 N.E.2d 733, 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), reh’g denied. But we have held that

this doctrine is not implicated where, as here, the charges at issue allege

different victims. Frazier v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1257, 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

[22] Wilcoxson also invokes what we recently referred to as the “very same act

test”—the rule that prohibits “conviction and punishment for a crime which

consists of the very same act as another crime for which the defendant has been

convicted and punished.” Bradley v. State, 113 N.E.3d 742, 751 (Ind. Ct. App.

2018), reh’g denied, trans. denied. The problem with this argument is that it starts

from the premise—not supported by any citation to the record—that the two

attempted-murder charges and the jury’s guilty verdicts on those charges were

based on the single shot that went through the window. See Cross-Appellee’s

Br. p. 18 (“Here, Wilcoxon’s two attempted murder convictions resulted from

the very same act – shooting a bullet through the roll call window.”). But

Wilcoxson took fifteen other shots in addition to the one that went through the

window, including two that hit the building and two that hit a dumpster and a

car sitting outside the building, and the State specifically pointed to these other

shots in arguing to the jury that Wilcoxson intended to kill both officers. See Tr.

Vol. IV p. 158 (“Intent, the number of shots fired. We talked about that earlier.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-1882 | August 29, 2019 Page 11 of 12 The number of casings. This isn’t an accident. This isn’t a one shot.”).

Nowhere in his discussion of the merger issue—not once—does Wilcoxson

acknowledge the evidence that he fired more than one shot. See Cross-

Appellee’s Br. pp. 10-19. In light of the other shots that Wilcoxson fails to

address, we cannot say that the entry of two attempted-murder convictions in

this case would violate the “very same act test.”

[23] We agree with the State that the trial court should have entered two attempted-

murder convictions and sentenced Wilcoxson accordingly. We remand this

matter to the trial court for that purpose.

[24] Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-1882 | August 29, 2019 Page 12 of 12