MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 02 2020, 10:41 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kristin A. Mulholland Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Appellate Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Crown Point, Indiana Samuel J. Dayton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ronald Earl Menzie, April 2, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2290 v. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Salvador Vasquez, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45G01-1803-MR-2
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2290 | April 2, 2020 Page 1 of 7 [1] Ronald Menzie appeals his convictions for Murder1 and Level 6 Felony
Criminal Recklessness.2 He argues that the trial court erred by admitting
autopsy photographs and by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included
offense of voluntary manslaughter. Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts [2] On March 10 and into the early morning hours of March 11, 2018, Bunita Boyd
was hosting a party at her home in Gary. Menzie was the cousin of the father
of Boyd’s children, and Boyd had known him for nearly two decades. Menzie
and some friends came to Boyd’s party at some point during the night.
[3] During the party, Boyd began to argue with her ex-boyfriend, Broderick
Harbin. Boyd took Harbin’s alcoholic beverage away from him because he had
a history of “get[ting] crazy” when he drank. Tr. Vol. V p. 231. Harbin hit
Boyd’s arm, and the two began “tussl[ing].” Id. Boyd yelled at Harbin and told
him to leave; instead, he sat down in a chair. Menzie was present in the room
during this interaction.
[4] Suddenly, Boyd heard a loud popping sound. Her hearing became “muffled,”
and she looked down and saw that her hand was bleeding because it had been
shot. Id. at 233. She looked at Menzie and saw him pointing a handgun at
Harbin, and then she heard “some more pops.” Id. at 234. Boyd felt scared
1 Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1. 2 I.C. § 35-42-2-2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2290 | April 2, 2020 Page 2 of 7 and pushed Menzie towards the door. Boyd’s son heard Boyd say to Menzie,
“I can’t believe you shot him.” Id. at Vol. VI p. 102. Menzie left the house,
telling Boyd not to “say his name” as he walked out. Id. at Vol. V p. 236.
Harbin was shot multiple times and died as a result of the injuries. Boyd
required medical treatment for the gunshot wound in her hand.
[5] On March 14, 2018, the State charged Menzie with murder, Level 5 felony
battery resulting in serious bodily injury, and Level 5 felony battery by means of
a deadly weapon. The State also filed a separate information alleging that each
offense should be enhanced based on Menzie’s use of a firearm. Menzie
represented himself during his jury trial that began on July 8, 2019. He
requested a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of voluntary
manslaughter; the trial court denied the request. At the close of the trial, the
jury found Menzie not guilty of battery causing serious bodily injury and guilty
of murder and Level 6 felony criminal recklessness (a lesser-included offense of
Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon). In the second phase of
the trial, the jury found Menzie guilty of using a firearm during the commission
of murder.
[6] On August 30, 2019, the trial court sentenced Menzie to fifty-eight years for
murder, enhanced by twelve years because of the use of a firearm enhancement,
and two years for criminal recklessness. The sentences are to be served
consecutively, resulting in an aggregate term of seventy-two years
imprisonment. Menzie now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2290 | April 2, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Discussion and Decision I. Admission of Evidence [7] First, Menzie contends that the trial court erroneously admitted photographs of
Harbin’s autopsy into evidence.3 The decision to admit or exclude evidence is
within the trial court’s sound discretion. Green v. State, 65 N.E.3d 620, 630
(Ind. Ct. App. 2016). We will reverse only if the trial court’s decision is clearly
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or if it
misinterprets the law. Id.
[8] Indiana Evidence Rule 403 provides that the trial court “may exclude relevant
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . .
unfair prejudice . . . .” It is hard to disagree with a contention that graphic
autopsy photos are inflammatory and may be prejudicial. But what must be
determined is whether the prejudice is unfair and substantially outweighs the
probative value of the evidence. Our Supreme Court has noted that “[e]ven
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.”
Amburgey v. State, 696 N.E.2d 44, 45 (Ind. 1998); see also Elliott v. State, 630
N.E.2d 202, 204 (Ind. 1994) (holding that photographs of the victim’s heart that
had been removed from the victim’s body during an autopsy were admissible
3 We acknowledge the State’s argument that Menzie did not make specific objections to the admission of these photographs. We choose to address the issue nonetheless.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2290 | April 2, 2020 Page 4 of 7 because a testifying doctor used the pictures “to demonstrate the path of the
bullet and the cause of death” and noting that “[t]he fact that a photograph may
depict gruesome details of a crime is not sufficient basis for excluding it”).
[9] In this case, the photographs were introduced into evidence during the
testimony of the pathologist who conducted the autopsy. The photographs
generally helped the jury understand the pathologist’s testimony, especially the
explanations about the trajectory of the bullets—and how that trajectory
demonstrated that Menzie acted with the requisite mens rea for murder.
Specifically, the fact that Menzie shot Harbin through the shoulder and towards
Harbin’s vital organs supports the inference that Menzie acted intentionally or
knowingly. Moreover, one of the photos—the only one specifically referenced
by Menzie on appeal—also helped to explain why there were four entrance
wounds even though the police only recovered three bullet casings. 4 Therefore,
while the photographs may have been graphic and somewhat prejudicial, any
prejudice was readily outweighed by the probative value of that evidence. As
such, the trial court did not err by admitting the photographs into evidence. 5
4 The trajectory of one bullet indicated that it actually created two separate entrance wounds.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 02 2020, 10:41 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kristin A. Mulholland Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Appellate Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Crown Point, Indiana Samuel J. Dayton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ronald Earl Menzie, April 2, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2290 v. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Salvador Vasquez, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45G01-1803-MR-2
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2290 | April 2, 2020 Page 1 of 7 [1] Ronald Menzie appeals his convictions for Murder1 and Level 6 Felony
Criminal Recklessness.2 He argues that the trial court erred by admitting
autopsy photographs and by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included
offense of voluntary manslaughter. Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts [2] On March 10 and into the early morning hours of March 11, 2018, Bunita Boyd
was hosting a party at her home in Gary. Menzie was the cousin of the father
of Boyd’s children, and Boyd had known him for nearly two decades. Menzie
and some friends came to Boyd’s party at some point during the night.
[3] During the party, Boyd began to argue with her ex-boyfriend, Broderick
Harbin. Boyd took Harbin’s alcoholic beverage away from him because he had
a history of “get[ting] crazy” when he drank. Tr. Vol. V p. 231. Harbin hit
Boyd’s arm, and the two began “tussl[ing].” Id. Boyd yelled at Harbin and told
him to leave; instead, he sat down in a chair. Menzie was present in the room
during this interaction.
[4] Suddenly, Boyd heard a loud popping sound. Her hearing became “muffled,”
and she looked down and saw that her hand was bleeding because it had been
shot. Id. at 233. She looked at Menzie and saw him pointing a handgun at
Harbin, and then she heard “some more pops.” Id. at 234. Boyd felt scared
1 Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1. 2 I.C. § 35-42-2-2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2290 | April 2, 2020 Page 2 of 7 and pushed Menzie towards the door. Boyd’s son heard Boyd say to Menzie,
“I can’t believe you shot him.” Id. at Vol. VI p. 102. Menzie left the house,
telling Boyd not to “say his name” as he walked out. Id. at Vol. V p. 236.
Harbin was shot multiple times and died as a result of the injuries. Boyd
required medical treatment for the gunshot wound in her hand.
[5] On March 14, 2018, the State charged Menzie with murder, Level 5 felony
battery resulting in serious bodily injury, and Level 5 felony battery by means of
a deadly weapon. The State also filed a separate information alleging that each
offense should be enhanced based on Menzie’s use of a firearm. Menzie
represented himself during his jury trial that began on July 8, 2019. He
requested a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of voluntary
manslaughter; the trial court denied the request. At the close of the trial, the
jury found Menzie not guilty of battery causing serious bodily injury and guilty
of murder and Level 6 felony criminal recklessness (a lesser-included offense of
Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon). In the second phase of
the trial, the jury found Menzie guilty of using a firearm during the commission
of murder.
[6] On August 30, 2019, the trial court sentenced Menzie to fifty-eight years for
murder, enhanced by twelve years because of the use of a firearm enhancement,
and two years for criminal recklessness. The sentences are to be served
consecutively, resulting in an aggregate term of seventy-two years
imprisonment. Menzie now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2290 | April 2, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Discussion and Decision I. Admission of Evidence [7] First, Menzie contends that the trial court erroneously admitted photographs of
Harbin’s autopsy into evidence.3 The decision to admit or exclude evidence is
within the trial court’s sound discretion. Green v. State, 65 N.E.3d 620, 630
(Ind. Ct. App. 2016). We will reverse only if the trial court’s decision is clearly
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or if it
misinterprets the law. Id.
[8] Indiana Evidence Rule 403 provides that the trial court “may exclude relevant
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . .
unfair prejudice . . . .” It is hard to disagree with a contention that graphic
autopsy photos are inflammatory and may be prejudicial. But what must be
determined is whether the prejudice is unfair and substantially outweighs the
probative value of the evidence. Our Supreme Court has noted that “[e]ven
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.”
Amburgey v. State, 696 N.E.2d 44, 45 (Ind. 1998); see also Elliott v. State, 630
N.E.2d 202, 204 (Ind. 1994) (holding that photographs of the victim’s heart that
had been removed from the victim’s body during an autopsy were admissible
3 We acknowledge the State’s argument that Menzie did not make specific objections to the admission of these photographs. We choose to address the issue nonetheless.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2290 | April 2, 2020 Page 4 of 7 because a testifying doctor used the pictures “to demonstrate the path of the
bullet and the cause of death” and noting that “[t]he fact that a photograph may
depict gruesome details of a crime is not sufficient basis for excluding it”).
[9] In this case, the photographs were introduced into evidence during the
testimony of the pathologist who conducted the autopsy. The photographs
generally helped the jury understand the pathologist’s testimony, especially the
explanations about the trajectory of the bullets—and how that trajectory
demonstrated that Menzie acted with the requisite mens rea for murder.
Specifically, the fact that Menzie shot Harbin through the shoulder and towards
Harbin’s vital organs supports the inference that Menzie acted intentionally or
knowingly. Moreover, one of the photos—the only one specifically referenced
by Menzie on appeal—also helped to explain why there were four entrance
wounds even though the police only recovered three bullet casings. 4 Therefore,
while the photographs may have been graphic and somewhat prejudicial, any
prejudice was readily outweighed by the probative value of that evidence. As
such, the trial court did not err by admitting the photographs into evidence. 5
4 The trajectory of one bullet indicated that it actually created two separate entrance wounds. 5 We also note that even if the photographs had been admitted, the error would have been harmless given the substantial independent evidence of Menzie’s guilt, particularly Boyd’s testimony that she saw Menzie shoot Harbin.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2290 | April 2, 2020 Page 5 of 7 II. Jury Instruction [10] Menzie also argues that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on
voluntary manslaughter, which is a lesser-included offense of murder. See
Washington v. State, 808 N.E.2d 617, 625 (Ind. 2004) (finding that voluntary
manslaughter is an inherently lesser-included offense of murder). Instruction of
juries is within the trial court’s sole discretion. Driver v. State, 760 N.E.2d 611,
612 (Ind. 2002). A jury must be instructed on a lesser-included offense only if,
among other things, there is a “serious evidentiary dispute” about the
element(s) distinguishing the greater from the lesser offense. Webb v. State, 963
N.E.2d 1103, 1106 (Ind. 2012).
[11] When a person knowingly or intentionally kills another human being while
acting under sudden heat, the “existence of sudden heat is a mitigating factor
that reduces what would otherwise be murder . . . to voluntary manslaughter.”
Ind. Code § 35-42-1-3(b). “Sudden heat” is “characterized as anger, rage,
resentment, or terror sufficient to obscure the reason of an ordinary person,
preventing deliberation and premeditation, excluding malice, and rendering a
person incapable of cool reflection.” Washington, 808 N.E.2d at 625-26. Where
there is no evidence of sudden heat, the State “is not required to prove the
absence of sudden heat beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a murder
conviction.” Massey v. State, 955 N.E.2d 247, 255 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
[12] In this case, there is simply no evidence whatsoever that Menzie acted in
sudden heat. The record reveals a moment of tension that occurred between
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2290 | April 2, 2020 Page 6 of 7 Boyd and Harbin when she took his drink away, they tussled, he struck her arm
and sat in a chair, refusing her demand to leave. Menzie was present during
this interaction. But nothing indicates that the situation caused him to
experience anger, rage, resentment, or terror, nor that it rendered him incapable
of cool reflection. The fight between Harbin and Boyd had nothing to do with
Menzie, and there is no evidence showing that Menzie would have been so
emotionally invested in what was happening that he was blinded by those
emotions.
[13] Instead, Menzie suddenly—and, presumably, calmly, given that Boyd had no
warning that he was about to act—shot Harbin multiple times. Menzie calmly
told Boyd not to say his name and then left the house. Nothing in the record
would support a reasonable inference that Menzie acted in sudden heat—in
other words, there is no serious evidentiary dispute on the matter. Therefore,
the trial court did not err by refusing to give a jury instruction on voluntary
manslaughter.
[14] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bradford, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2290 | April 2, 2020 Page 7 of 7