MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 20 2018, 8:41 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael R. Fisher Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Caryn N. Szyper Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kevin Jay Watkins, November 20, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1153 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Grant W. Appellee-Plaintiff Hawkins, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G05-1512-MR-46091
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 1 of 16 [1] Kevin Jay Watkins was convicted of two counts of Murder. 1 He appeals,
arguing that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence, that there was
insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and that his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Finding
no error and that his sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts [2] On December 18, 2015, burglars broke into Watkins’s house and stole four
guns and a television. Watkins reported the crime to the police and indicated
that he believed two kids in the neighborhood committed it, but he did not
identify any suspects. On December 20, 2015, Watkins confronted X.T., a
teenage boy in the neighborhood, about the burglary. During the
confrontation, Watkins was armed and wearing a badge when he handcuffed
X.T., accused him of burglarizing Watkins’s home or knowing who did, and
threatened X.T. that if Watkins’s property was not returned, “it’s going to be a
blood bath by Christmas.” Tr. Vol. V p. 112.
[3] Around the same time, Watkins confronted fifteen-year-old Satori Williams’s
girlfriend about the burglary, threatening that if he did not get his property
back, “there will be a blood bath on Christmas Eve.” Tr. Vol. II p. 97. Then,
on December 22, 2015, Watkins tried to intervene in an armed robbery
investigation at a nearby fast-food restaurant; he wanted to review the
1 Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 2 of 16 surveillance footage because he believed the teenagers he suspected of
burglarizing his home may have been involved in the robbery.
[4] On Christmas Eve 2015, Williams and sixteen-year-old Timmee Jackson were
walking to visit friends, but they never arrived at their destination. At some
point, their families and friends began calling the boys’ cell phones and
searching the neighborhood. During the search, Williams’s mother stopped at
Watkins’s house because the boys’ route that night would have taken them
directly past it; the boys also could have taken a shortcut through his yard to
reach their destination. Watkins’s wife told Williams’s mother that they did not
know anything about the missing boys. Williams’s mother did not see Watkins
or his Chevrolet Suburban that night.
[5] When the search resumed the next morning, Williams’s mother and sister
returned to Watkins’s house. Watkins’s Suburban was in the driveway, and
Watkins was outside. When Williams’s sister asked where Williams was,
Watkins said that he had never met him. He also spoke about the burglary and
how the neighborhood kids were trouble. During the conversation, Williams’s
mother and sister noticed a large amount of blood on the grass, leaves, and
sidewalk of Watkins’s front yard. When Williams’s mother asked about it,
Watkins suggested it belonged to a wild animal. Williams’s mother put a
bloody leaf in a plastic bag and called the police as soon as she left.
[6] A police officer arrived at Williams’s mother’s home later that morning; his
mother reported her son missing, showed the officer the bloody leaf she had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 3 of 16 taken from Watkins’s yard, and gave him Watkins’s address. The officer went
to Watkins’s house; Watkins was outside with a cleaning bucket. The officer
observed blood on the leaves in the yard and blood on the porch and
doorframe, and he smelled a strong odor of bleach as he approached the front
door. When back-up officers arrived, they discovered drag marks in the leaves
with a trail of blood leading from the front of the house to the backyard to an
abandoned house next door. The blood was later confirmed through DNA
analysis to belong to Williams and Jackson.
[7] Police learned that Watkins owned a bail-bond business located in a strip mall
on Massachusetts Avenue. Police went there, and while looking inside the
dumpster behind the business, they saw a 4.5-millimeter caliber black BB gun, a
red and black flannel shirt, dark jeans, and a large pair of shoes that were the
same size that Watkins had in his home. The jeans and shoes were covered in
mud and blood; later testing revealed that the blood belonged to the two
teenage boys.
[8] Surveillance footage recovered from a nearby business showed Watkins’s
Suburban driving into his business’s parking lot at 8:30 p.m. on Christmas Eve
and 3:48 a.m. on Christmas Day. Watkins was photographed carrying a
shovel, changing his clothes, and putting items in the dumpster, including a pair
of pants. After obtaining a search warrant for Watkins’s business, police found
blood inside; again, this blood was later discovered to belong to the boys.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 4 of 16 [9] Police also searched Watkins’s vehicle. The carpet in the back of the SUV was
stained with blood. A bottle of bleach was next to a large garbage bag, which
was stuffed with blood-soaked leaves, the packaging for a tactical tomahawk, a
bone chip from one of the boy’s skulls, brain matter, and what was later
determined to be Williams’s severed finger. The garbage bag also contained
blood-soaked clothing and shoes that matched what the boys were wearing
when last seen on Christmas Eve; Williams’s sweatshirt and t-shirt had slashes
in the back and shoulder from a sharp-edged object.
[10] On December 26, 2015, Watkins was arrested for the murders of Williams and
Jackson. While being transported, Watkins said, “those kids were a bunch of
gangsters, I knew I should have left them alone, now I’m going to jail.” Tr.
Vol. V p. 222. On December 29, 2015, the State charged Watkins with two
counts of murder.
[11] On February 22, 2016, a fisherman found Jackson’s body in a shallow grave
next to a retention pond close to Watkins’s business. A tomahawk was
recovered from the bottom of the retention pond that matched the packaging for
the tactical tomahawk found in Watkins’s vehicle. On April 10, 2016,
Williams’s body was found buried in a shallow grave in a field in Shelby
County.
[12] At some point after the discovery of the bodies, police obtained a warrant for
Watkins’s cell phone records, which indicated his cell phone location on
Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. His cell phone connected to cell phone
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 5 of 16 towers near where each body was discovered. The records revealed that
sometime between 9:22 p.m. and 10:36 p.m. on Christmas Eve, Watkins
changed the date on his cell phone from December 24 to December 13.
[13] Autopsies of the bodies confirmed that their deaths had been caused by multiple
chop wounds to their heads. Their injuries were nearly identical and were
located on the side and rear of their bodies; neither body had any wounds on
the front. The forensic pathologist concluded that both boys sustained more
than one incapacitating blow and that the size of the chop wound injuries were
consistent with the size of the blade on the tactical tomahawk recovered from
the retention pond.
[14] Before trial, the State filed a notice of intent to offer evidence pursuant to
Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b), seeking to introduce testimony regarding
Watkins’s confrontation of X.T. This testimony included the facts that, on
December 20, 2015, Watkins went to X.T.’s residence; that Watkins spoke to
X.T. about the burglary of his house; that Watkins was armed and handcuffed
X.T.; that Watkins presented himself as a law enforcement officer before
identifying himself as a bail bondsman; and that Watkins said, “if the guns
don’t come up it’s going to be a bloodbath.” Appellant’s Conf. App. Vol. II p.
207. A pretrial hearing took place, during which Watkins objected to the
admission of this evidence. Following the hearing, the trial court ruled that the
State would be permitted to introduce this testimony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 6 of 16 [15] A jury trial took place on February 26 through March 2, 2018. During the trial,
over Watkins’s objection, Lonzell Ratcliff, who was X.T.’s mentor, testified
that on December 20, 2015, he went to X.T.’s home to take X.T. to an event
and that when he arrived, he saw X.T. had been handcuffed behind his back.
Ratcliff had asked Watkins who he was, and Watkins responded that he was an
officer, although he later admitted that he was a bondsman. Ratcliff believed
that Watkins was a police officer because he was armed with a handgun and
was wearing a badge. Watkins claimed that X.T. was either responsible for the
burglary of his home or that he knew who was. Ratcliff testified that Watkins
threatened X.T. that if Watkins’s property was not returned, “it’s going to be a
blood bath by Christmas.” Tr. Vol. V p. 112. Watkins then released X.T. from
the handcuffs and left the residence.
[16] Watkins also testified at trial and admitted to killing the boys with his
tomahawk, but he claimed that he had done so in self-defense. He said that in
the days following the burglary of his house, he feared that he was under attack.
When he was in his front yard on Christmas Eve, two people came running
around the corner toward him and that one of them pulled out and pointed a
black gun at him. He reached for the tactical tomahawk on his belt and began
striking that person. He then testified that the other person tried to grab him
during the altercation and that because he feared that the second person may
also have been armed, he started striking the second person with the tomahawk
as well. Watkins said that he did not see a weapon in the second person’s hand
before he began striking him with the tomahawk.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 7 of 16 [17] Watkins claimed that he could not recall how many times he struck the boys or
where he struck them. He testified that after he killed them, he thought about
calling the police but decided against it. Instead, he dragged the bodies into his
backyard and then to the abandoned house next door before putting them in his
vehicle, driving to his business, and eventually burying them where they were
later discovered. He testified that he had tossed the tomahawk in the retention
pond and disposed of the items found in the dumpster behind his business; that
he bought a new shirt at a nearby gas station; that he put the items found in the
garbage bag in his vehicle in that bag; and that he was trying to clean up the
scene when the police arrived on Christmas Day.
[18] The jury found Watkins guilty as charged. A sentencing hearing took place on
April 20, 2018, during which the trial court sentenced him to two consecutive
55-year terms, for an aggregate term of 110 years. Watkins now appeals.
Discussion and Decision [19] Watkins raises three issues on appeal: 1) that the trial court erred by admitting
certain evidence in violation of Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b); 2) that the
evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because it failed to disprove
his defense of self-defense; and 3) the sentence was inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offenses and his character.
I. Admission of Evidence [20] Watkins first contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence about his
confrontation with X.T. The admission and exclusion of evidence falls within
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 8 of 16 the trial court’s sound discretion, and we will reverse only if the decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.
Johnson v. State, 6 N.E.3d 491, 498 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
[21] Watkins contends that the admission of this evidence violated Indiana Rules of
Evidence 403 and 404(b). Rule 404(b) states as follows:
(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. 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.
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. On request by a defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor must:
(A) provide reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial; and
(B) do so before trial—or during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.
Watkins contends that even if the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b),
its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value such that it should have
been excluded under Rule 403. Rule 403 provides that the trial court “may
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 9 of 16 exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a
danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence.”
[22] The main issue at trial was whether Watkins was acting in self-defense when he
killed Williams and Jackson. Watkins admitted to committing the murders but
argued that he was defending himself. The intent exception to Rule 404(b) is
“‘available when a defendant goes beyond merely denying the charged
culpability and affirmatively presents a claim of particular contrary intent.’”
Evans v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1072, 1079 (Ind. 2000) (quoting Wickizer v. State, 626
N.E.2d 795, 799 (Ind. 1993)). When a defendant alleges a particular contrary
intent at any time during trial, “‘the State may respond by offering evidence of
prior crimes, wrongs, or acts to the extent genuinely relevant to prove the
defendant’s intent at the time of the charged offense.’” Id.
[23] During the trial, Ratcliff testified about Watkins’s confrontation with X.T. His
testimony was offered not to show that Watkins had a criminal propensity and
therefore murdered the boys, but rather to show that he had intent to attack
teenage boys in the neighborhood and to disprove his self-defense claim.
Ratcliff’s testimony established that in the days between the burglary of
Watkins’s home and Christmas Eve, Watkins was pursuing teenage boys to
determine who had burglarized his house. When Watkins confronted X.T., he
accused X.T. of committing the crime or of knowing who did and threatened “a
blood bath by Christmas,” tr. vol. V p. 112, if his property was not returned.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 10 of 16 This prior act evidenced his hostility toward teenage boys. The testimony also
rebutted Watkins’s claim that Williams and Jackson were the aggressors as it
tended to show that Watkins had intent to initiate the attack that resulted in
their murders, which is allowed under Rule 404(b). It was not offered to prove
his general propensity to commit murder. The trial court did not err by
admitting this evidence.
[24] Watkins also contends that even if it was admissible, the prejudicial effect of the
testimony substantially outweighed the probative value of the testimony. We
disagree. This testimony was highly probative of Watkins’s motive and intent
to commit the murders. It established that he acted with vengeance, not self-
defense. Further, the admission of the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial.
The jury was not told that Watkins had been charged with any crimes related to
his confrontation of X.T. And considering the other evidence presented during
the trial, including Watkins’s admission to the crime, testimony from more than
thirty witnesses, and the significant amount of forensic evidence, there was little
danger that this relatively brief testimony would have inflamed the jury’s
passions or sympathies.
[25] Finally, Watkins challenges the State’s use of the testimony in its closing
argument—the State mentioned that Ratcliff found X.T. “in handcuffs” and
was “led to believe [Watkins was] a police officer,” tr. vol. VI p. 178, and that
Watkins “was targeting kids, much smaller kids, kids that he could intimidate,
get information out of,” id. at 194—arguing that such statements were
invitations for the jury to draw a forbidden inference. But these two statements
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 11 of 16 were a minimal part of the State’s lengthy closing argument, and, again, in light
of all the evidence the State discussed during its closing argument, we do not
find that the brief references to Ratcliff’s testimony would unfairly prejudice the
jury against him. Watkins’s argument is unavailing.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence [26] Next, Watkins argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the
convictions because it failed to show that he did not act in self-defense. 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.
[27] To convict Watkins of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Watkins knowingly or intentionally killed another human
being. I.C. § 35-42-1-1. On appeal, Watkins does not contend that the evidence
fails to support the statutory elements; indeed, Watkins admitted to killing
Williams and Jackson. Instead, he argues that the State failed to disprove his
claim of self-defense.
[28] To prevail on a claim of self-defense, a defendant must show that he was in a
place where he had a right to be; did not provoke, instigate, or participate
willingly in the violence; and had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 12 of 16 harm. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002); see also Ind. Code § 35-
41-3-2. When a self-defense claim is raised and finds support in the evidence,
the State bears the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements
beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800. The State may meet its
burden by offering evidence directly rebutting the defense, affirmatively
showing that the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by relying on the
sufficiency of the evidence from its case-in-chief. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d
696, 700 (Ind. 1999). If a defendant is convicted despite a claim of self-defense,
we will reverse only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was
negated beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 801.
[29] Here, the record contains the following evidence supporting Watkins’s
convictions:
• Following the burglary of his home, Watkins confronted teenagers in his neighborhood about the burglary. He handcuffed and threatened X.T. about the crime, warning that if his property was not returned, “it’s going to be a blood bath by Christmas.” Tr. Vol. V p. 112. Watkins also told Williams’s girlfriend that if he did not get his property back, “there will be a blood bath on Christmas Eve.” Tr. Vol. II p. 97. • Watkins tried to intervene in an armed robbery investigation at a nearby fast-food restaurant, requesting to review the surveillance footage because he believed that the teenagers he suspected of burglarizing his home may have been involved in that armed robbery. • After being arrested, Watkins said that, “those kids were a bunch of gangsters, I knew I should have left them alone, now I’m going to jail.” Tr. Vol. V p. 222. • The forensic evidence established that Watkins delivered fourteen chop wound injuries to the back and sides of the boys’ heads, and one chop
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 13 of 16 wound injury to Williams’s back. There were no wounds on the front of either of the boys’ bodies. • Watkins sustained no injuries. • The evidence indicated that Watkins continued to attack the boys even after they had fallen to the ground. The forensic pathologist testified that each victim sustained more than one incapacitating chop wound injury, any one of which could have caused them to fall to the ground unconscious. • Following the attack, Watkins did not contact police, instead burying the bodies in two remote locations. • Watkins took significant steps to cover his tracks, including throwing the boys’ clothing and possessions into a dumpster, tossing the murder weapon in a retention pond, changing into new clothes, disabling the boys’ cell phones, changing the date on his own cell phone, and attempting to clean the blood from his yard and sidewalk with bleach.
[30] Watkins is correct that there is some evidence in the record supporting his claim
of self-defense; primarily, it is his own testimony. But from the evidence above,
a reasonable juror could have determined that Watkins was not under any
threat at the time of the attack, much less a reasonable fear of imminent use of
unlawful force. Further, a reasonable juror easily could have inferred that
Watkins acted with unjustified aggression, rather than self-defense, based on his
repeated use of a deadly weapon. Finally, a reasonable juror could have found
from the totality of the evidence presented by the State—including Watkins’s
words and actions before and after the murder, the location of the boys’
injuries, and the number of blows inflicted—that the State sufficiently refuted
Watkins’s claim of self-defense. Watkins’s argument amounts to a request that
we reweigh the evidence and second-guess the jury’s assessment of witnesses.
We decline to do so. The evidence is sufficient to support the convictions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 14 of 16 III. Sentence [31] Finally, Watkins contends that the sentence imposed by the trial court is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character and that we
should revise his sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). We must
“conduct [this] review with substantial deference and give ‘due consideration’
to the trial court’s decision—since the ‘principal role of [our] review is to
attempt to leaven the outliers,’ and not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence
. . . .” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Chambers v.
State, 989 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013)) (internal citations omitted).
[32] Watkins was convicted of two counts of murder, for which he faced a sentence
of forty-five to sixty-five years imprisonment, with an advisory term of fifty-five
years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3. He received two advisory, consecutive 55-year
sentences, for an aggregate of 110 years, for these convictions. Had the
maximum consecutive sentences been imposed, he would have received a term
of 130 years.
[33] With respect to the nature of the offenses, Watkins attacked two teenage boys
on Christmas Eve simply because they had the misfortune of crossing his path
that evening. He brutally and repeatedly struck them from behind with a
tactical tomahawk, inflicting multiple injuries to their bodies, and then buried
their bodies in remote areas. The next day, Watkins was attempting to clean
his property to remove evidence when police approached. Nothing about the
appalling nature of this offense renders his sentence inappropriate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 15 of 16 [34] With respect to Watkins’s character, we note first that, after his house was
burglarized, he began a vengeful pursuit of teenagers in his neighborhood,
threatening multiple people that if his items were not returned to him, there
would be a blood bath around Christmas. As a result of his confrontation with
X.T., which was part of this pursuit, he was charged with Level 3 felony
criminal confinement and Level 6 felony impersonation of a public servant. He
also tried to intervene in a police investigation of an armed robbery. His
fixation on catching the burglars ended with the violent slaying of two teenage
boys.
[35] Watkins points out that he had lived a relatively stable, productive life, both
professionally and personally, before he committed these murders. But
Watkins’s actions demonstrate a disturbing lack of respect for human life and
for the law. We do not find that his character aids his appropriateness
argument. In sum, we find that the sentence is not inappropriate in light of the
[36] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1153 | November 20, 2018 Page 16 of 16