Williams v. State

1

Elrice Lynn Williams, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

No. 23A-CR-681

Court of Appeals of Indiana

March 25, 2024

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.

Appeal from the Lake Superior Court The Honorable Natalie Bokota Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45G02-1903-MR-10

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Kristin A. Mulholland

Appellate Public Defender

Crown Point, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita

Attorney General of Indiana

Megan M. Smith

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Mathias, Judge.

[¶1] Elrice Lynn Williams appeals his convictions for murder, three counts of Level 3 felony attempted robbery, Level 4 felony attempted burglary, and Level 4 felony burglary. Williams raises four issues for our review, which we restate as the following two issues:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence testimony regarding Williams's gang affiliation.

2. Whether Williams's convictions violate Indiana's prohibition against double jeopardy.

[¶2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶3] In January 2019, William Hawkins sold marijuana in Gary. Hawkins had several friends sell the marijuana on his behalf. One of those friends was Donald Shields, who lived with his girlfriend, Chyanne Miller, in a house on Madison Street.

[¶4] Giovante Galloway knew that Shields sold marijuana for Hawkins and knew of Shields's residence on Madison Street. Galloway reached out to his uncle, Juarez Rogers, to see if Rogers would help Galloway break into the Madison Street house to steal the marijuana. Rogers, in turn recruited Joe Chuck Pittman, and the three men then met and agreed on a plan to break into the Madison Street house.

[¶5] On January 9, the three men met with two other men-Williams and Joshua Wright-in Rogers's basement to finalize their plan. The five men then drove in one vehicle to the Madison Street house. There, they attempted to open the back door, but a piece of wood near the door fell over and made a loud noise. That noise was promptly followed by the sound of gunshots coming from inside the house. The five men "scatter[ed]" but, after some time, met back up at their vehicle. Tr. Vol. 5, p. 36.

[¶6] Meanwhile, Shields called Hawkins and asked Hawkins to pick Shields and Miller up and to take them to a different residence. Hawkins arrived about ten minutes later with his girlfriend, Alayna Ortiz. Hawkins was driving Ortiz's vehicle. Shields and Miller then exited the house and entered the vehicle; Miller had some clothing in a pink duffel bag that she brought with her.

[¶7] The five men had returned to their vehicle by the time Hawkins arrived at the scene, and they watched Shields and Miller enter the other vehicle with the duffel bag. They concluded that the marijuana was traveling with Hawkins, and they followed Ortiz's vehicle.

[¶8] Hawkins drove to an apartment complex and parked in a spot that had a wooden post in front of it. Wright, who was driving the other vehicle, immediately pulled in behind Hawkins, blocking him in. Williams and Pittman "jump[ed] out" of their vehicle, with Williams taking the driver's side and Pittman the passenger's side. Id. at 49. Both men were armed. From the back seat, Shields yelled at Hawkins to "drive," and Hawkins put the car into gear and then powered over the wooden post. Tr. Vol. 4, p. 125. As Hawkins did so, Williams fired his gun through the rear driver's side window. The bullet struck Ortiz in the head and killed her.

[¶9] Hawkins found local law enforcement nearby and drove to them for assistance. The five men went back to the Madison Street house and completed their burglary of it. Later, Galloway informed law enforcement of what had happened and who had been involved.

[¶10] The State charged Williams with numerous offenses. The State called multiple witnesses, several of whom identified Williams in open court and testified that he went by the name "BD." Tr. Vol. 5, p. 24. During his cross-examination of Galloway, Williams's counsel engaged him in the following colloquy:

Q. And you also said that the front passenger was being called BD[,] right?

A. Yeah.

Q. But everybody in the car, they were calling each other BD[,] weren't they?

A. Yes.

Id. at 101. Following that exchange, the State asked to approach the bench regarding a possible redirect examination of the witness:

[State]: There was a fact that the State was staying away from but I believe counsel has now opened the door to.

The initials BD not only go to the name, but also a gang affiliation, Black Disciples. Counsel . . . in his questioning[,] said, everybody was calling each other BD. I have to be able to clarify why these people were being referenced as BD because it's not a name; it was their affiliation.

Id. at 121. Over objection, the court permitted the State to ask its questions to Galloway on redirect. Galloway then testified that BD referred to a gang called the "Black Disciples," that "anybody affiliated with the Black Disciples . . . would be called [BD] for nicknames," and "[e]veryone" in the car except for Galloway and Rogers was affiliated with the gang. Id. at 124-25.

[¶11] The jury found Williams guilty on multiple counts, and the trial court entered judgment of conviction against Williams for murder, three counts of Level 3 felony attempted robbery, Level 4 felony attempted burglary, and Level 4 felony burglary. The court sentenced Williams accordingly, and this appeal ensued.

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence testimony of Williams's gang affiliation after Williams made an issue out of it in his cross-examination of the witness.

[¶12] We first address Williams's argument that the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted the State to ask Galloway, on redirect, about Williams's affiliation with the Black Disciples gang.^[1] A trial court has broad discretion regarding the admission of evidence, and its decisions are reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1193 (Ind. 2021). We will reverse only if the trial court's ruling was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it and the errors affect a party's substantial rights. Id.

[¶13] Williams initially contends that the State's questions to Galloway about Williams's gang affiliation should have been prohibited under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b). That Rule provides that "[e]vidence 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." Ind. Evidence Rule 404(b)(1). However, such evidence "may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." Evid. R. 404(b)(2).

[¶14] Williams's gang affiliation was admissible under Rule 404(b) to prove Williams's identity as the "BD" Galloway identified as participating in the events of January 9, 2019. Tr. Vol. 5, p. 24. Galloway's initial testimony identified one participant in that day's events as "BD," which testimony Galloway coupled with an in-court identification of Williams. Id. On cross-examination, Williams's counsel then elicited testimony that other men involved in that day's events were also known as "BD." Id. at 101. That line of questioning from Williams's counsel opened the door for the State to disambiguate the situation by asking Galloway, on redirect, to explain why he had identified Williams in particular as BD and why others in the car may have also been known as BD even though Galloway was not using that abbreviation to refer to them in his testimony. Id. at 121. Thus, the trial court properly admitted Galloway's testimony on redirect.

[¶15] Williams also asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Galloway's testimony under Evidence Rule 403. Rule 403 provides that the trial court "may 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."

[¶16] The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403. Williams's questioning of Galloway created a misleading impression with the jury, namely, that Galloway may have been referring to any of the gang-affiliated members in the group and not about Williams specifically in his testimony. The State's questions on redirect were necessary to dispel that misleading impression. That is, not only was Galloway's testimony on redirect relevant, excluding it would have permitted, not avoided, a misleading impression with the jury. Thus, the trial court properly allowed Galloway's testimony under Rule 403.

2. Williams's convictions do not violate Indiana's prohibition against double jeopardy.

[¶17] We thus turn to Williams's arguments on appeal that several of his convictions violate Indiana's prohibition against double jeopardy. We review these questions de novo. See Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227, 237 (Ind. 2020).

2.1. Williams's convictions for murder and the three Level 3 felony attempted robberies are not contrary to Wadle. ^[2]

[¶18] Williams first asserts that his conviction for murder and his three Level 3 felony attempted robbery convictions are contrary to our Supreme Court's analysis in Wadle for substantive double jeopardy claims. "Wadle set forth a multi-step analysis to evaluate...