Ralph A. Tait v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 11, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-283
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 11 2018, 8:54 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 Matthew D. Anglemeyer Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Appellate Division Jesse R. Drum Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ralph A. Tait, October 11, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-283 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Grant W. Appellee-Plaintiff. Hawkins, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G05-1609-MR-38611

Bailey, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-283 | October 11, 2018 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Ralph Tait (“Tait”) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of murder.1

He raises one issue on appeal, namely, whether the trial court erroneously

excluded evidence tending to show that a third party committed the crime.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] At around 4:45 a.m. on September 25, 2016, Tait drove Starr Eldridge

(“Eldridge”) to a gas station and then to his apartment approximately five miles

away. At about 5:45 a.m., Tait carried Eldridge’s body, which was wrapped in

a comforter, out of his apartment and into the trunk of his car. Tait dumped

Eldridge’s body in a nearby retention pond. He then cleaned his apartment

with bleach and cut out a piece of carpet and padding. Later that day, someone

found Eldridge’s body in the pond. She had thirteen stab wounds. The police

found her blood and DNA in Tait’s apartment and car.

[4] The State charged Tait with murder. Before trial, Tait filed a “Notice of Intent

to Use” and admit at trial evidence that: the police investigated Leroy Moss

(“Moss”), Eldridge’s former boyfriend, as a suspect in Eldridge’s murder; Moss

was charged with robbing a cab driver with a knife on October 15, 2016; Moss’s

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-283 | October 11, 2018 Page 2 of 6 DNA and inconclusive DNA of another person were found on the knife Moss

used in the robbery; and Moss was with Tait and Eldridge on the morning of

Eldridge’s murder. In response, the State filed its objection and a Motion in

Limine requesting that the court prohibit Tait from presenting evidence of,

among other things: Eldridge’s prostitution and other crimes and evidence of

any other third person’s past crimes.

[5] At a November 21, 2017, pretrial hearing, Tait did not object to the exclusion of

evidence about Eldridge’s prostitution, noting that “[i]f it comes out in trial I

suppose we could revisit.” Supp. Tr. Vol. II at 24. Although Tait argued at the

pretrial hearing for the admission of evidence of Moss’s past crimes, including

DNA evidence of the knife used in the robbery, the trial court ruled that Tait

was not permitted to admit such evidence at trial, but that Tait and Moss could

testify about their observations. On November 27, the day of the jury trial but

before voir dire, Tait purported to “supplement” his prior November 21 offer of

proof with the Commander’s Information Sheet for Moss’s arrest, Defense

Exhibit A, and two subpoenas, Defense Exhibits B-1 and B-2. Tr. Vol. II at 7-8.

However, at trial, Tait never attempted to introduce those exhibits or any other

evidence about Eldridge’s prostitution or Moss’s prior crimes; therefore, the

trial court did not make any final ruling on the admission of such evidence.

[6] At Tait’s trial, Detective Christopher Craighill testified that he interviewed

Moss and took a buccal swab of Moss. Tait testified that, on the morning of

Eldridge’s death, he took Moss and Eldridge to the gas station and then Tait’s

apartment. Tait testified that he left Moss and Eldridge in his apartment while

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-283 | October 11, 2018 Page 3 of 6 he went back to the gas station to get cigarettes. Tait stated that, when he

returned to his apartment, he found Eldridge’s dead body and Moss had left the

apartment. Tait testified that he removed Eldridge’s body and dumped it in a

retention pond because he was “shocked” and “frantic,” and he did not know

what else to do. Tr. Vol. III at 98. Moss testified that he was not with Eldridge

on the day of her murder, that he had never met Tait or been to his apartment,

and that a detective interviewed him and took a buccal swab.

[7] On November 28, 2017, the jury found Tait guilty of murder, and he was

subsequently sentenced to serve fifty-five years at the Department of Correction.

This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [8] Tait contends that the trial court denied him a fair trial by excluding evidence

that Moss, rather than Tait, committed the murder of Eldridge. Specifically, he

asserts that the trial court erred by excluding the following evidence that: (1)

Moss and Eldridge were romantically involved; (2) Eldridge was a prostitute

and Moss may have been her pimp; (3) Eldridge and Moss argued

approximately one month before her murder; (4) Moss was arrested and

charged with robbery three weeks after the murder; (5) Moss used the same type

of weapon in the robbery—i.e., a knife—as was used in Eldridge’s murder; (6)

the knife used in the robbery had Moss’s DNA on it and the DNA of an

unknown third person; and (7) Eldridge died from thirteen stab wounds.

Appellant’s Br. at 16-17. However, evidence was admitted at trial as to facts

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-283 | October 11, 2018 Page 4 of 6 (1), (3), and (7), above. And, although Tait attempted unsuccessfully at a

pretrial hearing on a motion in limine to get a ruling of admission as to

evidence of facts (2), (4), (5), and (6), he never offered or attempted to admit

such evidence at trial.

[9] In order to preserve error in the over-ruling of a pretrial motion in limine, the

appealing party must have offered the evidence at issue into the trial record, and

he must have objected to the ruling disallowing the admission of that evidence.

Clausen v. State, 622 N.E.2d 925, 927 (Ind. 1993). This is because a ruling on a

motion in limine “does not determine the ultimate admissibility of the evidence;

that determination is made by the trial court in the context of the trial itself.”

Id. at 927. Absent “a ruling at trial excluding evidence accompanied by a

proper offer of proof, there is no basis for a claim of error.” Hollowell v. State,

753 N.E.2d 612, 615-16 (Ind. 2001). Thus, failure to object to the exclusion of

evidence at trial results in waiver of the alleged error. Clausen, 622 N.E.2d at

927; see also Raess v. Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 790, 796-97 (Ind. 2008) (“Failure to

object at trial to the admission of the evidence results in waiver of the error,

notwithstanding a prior motion in limine.”).

[10] Because Tait did not attempt to admit evidence of Eldridge’s prostitution or

Moss’s arrest and charge for robbery at trial, there is no order excluding that

evidence for him to appeal.2 He has waived any claim regarding the admission

2 For the same reason, we cannot engage in a fundamental error analysis; there is no exclusion of evidence to be analyzed.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-283 | October 11, 2018 Page 5 of 6 into evidence of facts relating to Eldridge’s prostitution and Moss’s past

criminal behavior, as no such admission was sought, nor any offer of proof

made, at trial. Id.

[11] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-283 | October 11, 2018 Page 6 of 6