Hardiman v. State

222 N.E.3d 1049

Marques D. HARDIMAN, Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-CR-2993

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed November 2, 2023

Attorney for Appellant: Zachary J. Stock, Zachary J. Stock, Attorney at Law, P.C., Carmel, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Samuel Dayton, Megan M. Smith, Nicole D. Wiggins, Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Tavitas, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Following a jury trial, Marques Hardiman was convicted of murder, a felony, and attempted robbery, a Level 5 felony. Hardiman appeals and claims that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of text messages exchanged between Hardiman and his accomplice regarding a previously planned robbery; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in instructing the jury on the availability of the defense of self-defense. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Issues

[2] Hardiman presents two issues for our review:

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) —text messages exchanged between Hardiman and his accomplice regarding a previously planned robbery.

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in instructing the jury on the availability of the defense of self-defense, and, if so, whether it was harmless error.

Facts

[3] On May 2, 2021, then eighteen-year-old Hardiman sent a text message to his friend, Christian Edmon, in which he asked if Edmon could "front" him some marijuana, i.e., give Hardiman marijuana with a promise of payment later. Ex. Vol. V p. 102. Edmon told Hardiman that he could not do so and indicated that he needed to "re up," i.e., purchase additional marijuana himself. Id. Hardiman then arranged to buy the drug from Emanuel Fonville the next day. Hardiman then sent Edmon a text message stating that he "gotta L on a QP,"¹ meaning that Hardiman had identified a potential victim from which he could rob a quarter pound of marijuana.² Id. When Edmon asked Hardiman for more details, Hardiman replied that the person who had the marijuana was "some black n**ga on my snap,^{[3 ]}" and that they planned to meet at 4:30 p.m. in Brownsburg. Id. at 104.

[4] On the afternoon of May 3, 2021, Fonville and his girlfriend, Giovanna Hines, drove to a Kroger parking lot to meet Hardiman. A Chrysler pulled up next to Fonville's car. Hardiman exited the Chrysler and got in the back seat of Fonville's car. Hardiman asked to see the marijuana. Fonville showed him the marijuana and asked to see Hardiman's money. Hardiman then exited Fonville's car and returned to the Chrysler. Edmon, who had been driving the Chrysler, and Hardiman both exited the Chrysler; Edmon was wearing a ski mask. Hardiman and Edmon got into the back seat of Fonville's car; Hardiman sat behind Hines in the passenger side of the car, and Edmon sat behind Fonville on the driver's side. Hardiman asked if the marijuana was the agreed-to amount, and Fonville weighed the marijuana on a scale. When Fonville said, "it's all there," Hardiman grabbed the marijuana. Tr. Vol. II p. 192. Fonville also grabbed the marijuana, and the two struggled over control of the marijuana. As they struggled, Hardiman pulled out a handgun and shot Fonville in the chest.

[5] After Hardiman shot Fonville, Hardiman and Edmon exited Fonville's car, got back into the Chrysler, and drove away. Brooks Vossler, who happened to be eating his lunch in the Kroger parking lot at the time, heard the shooting and observed a Chrysler drive away from the scene. Vossler jotted down the license plate number of the Chrysler. Vossler then went to Fonville's aid. Hines dialed 911 and hid the marijuana in the trunk of Fonville's car. Fonville was transported by ambulance to the hospital, where he died as a result of the gunshot wound. The police found no guns or other weapons in Fonville's car. They did, however, find Fonville's marijuana, which Hines had hidden in the car.

[6] That same day of the shooting, Hardiman deleted his Snapchat account, and he either deleted or deactivated his other social media accounts. Later that evening, Edmon sent Hardiman a link to a news story about the shooting. Hardiman responded, "[d]amn." Ex. Vol. V p. 106. Hardiman in turn sent the link to his girlfriend. Hardiman also sent Edmon a link about a "first time doing a drill [i.e., a robbery] with your homie." Tr. Vol. IV p. 76. Hardiman disassembled the handgun and disposed of the pieces in various, different locations.

[7] With the license plate number and the information provided by Hines, the police soon identified Hardiman as a suspect. On May 6, 2021, Brownsburg Police Department Captain Jennifer Barrett interviewed Hardiman. Hardiman admitted that he planned to buy marijuana from Fonville, but he claimed that Fonville reached for a gun and demanded money. Only then, Hardiman claimed, did he pull out his gun and shoot Fonville.

[8] The State charged Hardiman with Count I, murder; Count II, felony murder; and Count III, attempted robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 2 felony. The State also alleged that Hardiman used a firearm during the commission of the murder.

[9] A four-day jury trial commenced on October 25, 2022. At trial, the State offered into evidence State's Exhibit 73, which was a printout of text messages exchanged between Hardiman and Edmon on March 15, 2021. These messages indicate that Hardiman and Edmon had planned a robbery on March 15, 2021, which was similar to the plans the two made before robbing Fonville. Specifically, Hardiman sent a message to Edmon stating, "Gotta lick onna qp of some za^{[4 ]} on dis n**ga I jus added on snap he a white boy." Ex. Vol. V p. 88. Edmon asked if the person Hardiman was referring to had a "pipe," meaning a gun. Id. at 89. Hardiman stated, "Ion think so .... He don't post it." Id. at 90. After further discussion about the planned target, Edmon messaged Hardiman, "Think of a plan rn^{[5 ]} though." Id. at 94. Hardiman later told Edmon, "When u up pipe imma hop out open the back door and pull em out ... [a]nd take the gas.^{[6 ]}" Id. at 95.

[10] Hardiman objected to the admission of these March 2021 messages, arguing that they were unduly prejudicial, were evidence of prior bad acts, and were inadmissible hearsay. The State argued that the messages were admissible as evidence of a contrary intent to rebut Hardiman's claim of self-defense and to show motive. The trial court overruled Hardiman's objections, concluding:

The part I was concerned about is[,] for evidence of a crime, wrong or other act [to] be admissible[,] the court must decide if the evidence is relevant to a material fact, to a matter at issue other than the Defendant's propensity to commit the charged act. The principal risk of unfair prejudice presented by uncharged misconduct evidence [is] that the jury will infer that the Defendant was a bad man who should have been punished for his other uncharged misdeeds. That was the concern I had. Balancing everything out, [ ] I think the State has shown that it is offering this evidence for reasons other than the Defendant's propensity to commit the charged act. It's a very close call but when the law says basically again that the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion and waste of time must substantially outweigh the legitimate probative value. I don't think that's been met.

Tr. Vol. IV p. 62. The trial court then admitted the March 2021 messages into evidence.

[11] Before the case was submitted to the jury, Hardiman tendered an instruction on self-defense that provided in relevant part:

A person is not justified in using force if:

(1) the person is committing a crime, and there is an immediate causal connection between the crime and the confrontation ....

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 223.

[12] The State's proposed self-defense instruction stated in relevant part:

[A] person may not use force if:

he is committing a crime that is directly and immediately connected to the confrontation[.] In other words, for the defendant to lose the right of self-defense, the jury must find that, but for the Defendant's commission of a separate crime, the confrontation resulting in injury to Emmanuel Fonville would not have occurred ....

Id. at 216 (emphasis added).

[13] The trial court's instruction on self-defense included language from both proposed instructions and provided in relevant part:

[A] person may not use force if he is committing a crime and there is an immediate causal connection between the crime and the confrontation. In other words, for the Defendant to lose the right of self-defense the jury must find that but for the Defendant's commission of a separate crime, the confrontation resulting in injury to Emanuel Fonville would not have occurred....

Tr. Vol. IV p. 170 (emphases added). Hardiman objected to the trial court's instruction, which the trial court overruled.

[14] The jury found Hardiman guilty as charged and found that Hardiman used a firearm during the commission of the murder. On November 14, 2022, the trial court held a sentencing hearing at which it entered judgment of conviction on the count of murder but "vacate[d]" the felony murder conviction due to double jeopardy concerns. Id. at 244. The trial court also entered judgment of conviction on the attempted robbery count as a Level 5 felony. The trial court sentenced Hardiman to an executed term of fifty years on the murder conviction, which was enhanced by ten years for the use of a firearm, and a consecutive term of three years on the attempted robbery conviction. Hardiman now appeals.⁷

Discussion and Decision

I. Admission of Text Messages

[15] Hardiman first argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence the text messages he and Edmon exchanged on March 15, 2021, forty-nine days before the instant shooting. We review challenges to the admission of evidence for an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Combs v....