DaShawn Powell, Jr., Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] DaShawn Powell, Jr., was found guilty by a jury of Count 1, felony murder ¹ ; Count 2, aiding, inducing, or causing murder ² ; Count 3, Level 2 felony robbery ³ ; Counts 4 and 5, Level 3 felony robbery ⁴ ; and Count 6, Level 5 felony robbery.⁵ The trial court entered judgment of conviction for Counts 2 and 5, imposing a total sentence of sixty-four years.⁶ Powell appeals only his murder conviction, alleging there was insufficient evidence to prove that charge.⁷ We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On the night of April 27, 2021, Olivia Carrillo, her son, and her roommate, Danielle, were at the home they shared in South Bend. Carrillo's boyfriend, Jalen Cullens, was also at the house. Cullens did not live there, although he stayed overnight sometimes. On this night, he was at Carrillo's because there was a power outage at his house.

[3] Earlier in the evening, Cullens had been contacted by Powell, whom Cullens had known for a decade. Powell wanted to buy some marijuana from Cullens. About 10:30 p.m., Cullens texted Powell Carrillo's address and told Powell to “[p]ull up here” in the alley. Exhibits Vol. 4 at 5. At 11:05 p.m., Powell texted, “I'm standing at the back door.” Id. at 6.

[4] Cullens let Powell in through the back door and they stood in the kitchen while Powell checked out the flavors Cullens had to offer. Powell asked if he could “show somebody else in the car one of the flavors” and went outside for less than a minute. Tr. Vol. 2 at 89.

[5] Cullens was still in the kitchen alone when Powell returned to the house. Powell pulled a revolver, pointed it at Cullens’ head, and said, “[G]ive me everything or I'm going to kill you.” Id. at 90. Cullens grabbed the gun and “tussle[d] over it” with Powell. Id. at 91. Cullens explained, “I guess we both got our hands on the gun and ․ I began to shoot the bullets out through the back of the house at the back wall ․ [u]ntil the chamber was empty.” Id. Powell dropped the gun and ran out the back door. Almost immediately, “[g]unshots rang from the back of the house and into the house.” Id. at 93. Cullens turned to run toward the front of the house when he was struck in the leg by a bullet and fell to the ground. He crawled toward the living room, calling out for Carrillo. She was “laying down basically” in the hallway, not responding. Id. at 128. Cullens called 9-1-1.

[6] Danielle was in the basement during these events. She heard the back door open and close two or three times and then heard Cullens and another male fighting. Cullens called out, “[B]aby go get the gun.” Id. at 154. Then Danielle heard two rounds of gunshots. She thought the first round came from inside the house. Through a basement window, she then saw someone running away from the house and shooting.

[7] Carrillo's next-door neighbor also heard the two rounds of gunshots. He looked out a window during the second round and saw a male shooting toward Carrillo's house. He also heard someone say “kick the back door in.” Id. at 185. Although he only saw one person, he assumed there were at least two people because “I don't think [the shooter] would say that to himself.” Id. at 187.

[8] The first officer to arrive gave Cullens a tourniquet to put on his leg and began administering CPR to Carrillo. As additional police arrived, they found and secured two guns in the house: the revolver over which Cullens and Powell had fought and a Glock semiautomatic firearm. The Glock belonged to Carrillo and there was no indication it had been recently fired. The revolver contained six shell casings. Cullens told the officer who secured the firearms, “[W]e took them off the guys who shot us.” Id. at 53. Cullens was transported to the hospital by medics where he underwent surgery. Carrillo had been struck in the upper chest by a bullet and was pronounced dead at the scene.

[9] Investigators conducted a shooting incident reconstruction and found “multiple bullet defects on the back of the house ․ showing that there were shots being shot into the house and also shot from inside the house out of the house.” Id. at 229. They concluded six shots came from inside the house, corresponding with six spent casings in the revolver. And they concluded seven shots were fired from outside. They recovered four spent bullets inside the house and six casings from an AK-47 rifle behind Carrillo's house. The rifle was never found.

[10] Cullens was initially “unwilling” to help police and did not immediately identify Powell as the shooter. Id. at 123. When presented with a six-photo array a few days after the shooting, Cullens identified a picture of Powell as “maybe” the shooter. Tr. Vol. 3 at 70. Further investigation uncovered additional information indicating Powell was at or near the Carrillo house at the time of the shooting.

[11] The State charged Powell with six counts, including two counts of murder. At trial, the State proceeded on the theory that Powell killed Carrillo as either the shooter or an accomplice. In addition to eliciting testimony as described above, the State called Carrillo's brother, Marco Ybarra, as a witness. Ybarra recorded a phone conversation he had with Powell shortly after Carrillo's murder that was played for the jury. During the conversation, Powell admitted he had a revolver at Carrillo's house and he was with someone else, but he did not identify the other person.

[12] The jury found Powell guilty of all charges. At sentencing, the trial court acknowledged “there are ․ a number of counts that [it] cannot enter judgment of conviction on because it would be double jeopardy” and said it intended to enter judgment of conviction on Count 1 (felony murder) and either Count 4 or 5 (Level 3 robbery). Id. at 226. The State asked for judgment of conviction on Count 2 (aiding, inducing, or causing murder) instead of Count 1 because Count 2 was not related to the robbery. The trial court agreed and entered judgment accordingly.

Sufficient evidence supports Powell's conviction of murder.

[13] A sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim warrants a “deferential standard of review in which we ‘neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility[.]’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied). Instead, we respect the factfinder's exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence, Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018), and consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact, Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021). We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024). It is “not necessary that the evidence ‘overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ ” Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 133 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind. 1995)).

[14] Powell concedes he was at Carrillo's house, armed with a revolver. See Appellant's Br. at 10 n.2. But he argues there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict that he was guilty of Count 2 “when there was no evidence to prove that Powell had anything to do with the shots that were fired from the alley that struck and killed” Carrillo. Id. at 10.

[15] Powell was convicted of murdering Carrillo under a theory of accomplice liability. Indiana Code Section 35-42-1-1(1) defines murder as “knowingly or intentionally kill[ing] another human being[.]” And under Indiana Code section 35-41-2-4, a defendant can be found guilty as an accomplice when the defendant “knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to commit an offense[.]” It is not necessary for the evidence to establish the accomplice personally participated in the commission of each element of the offense. Jackson v. State, 222 N.E.3d 321, 336–37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. A person who aids another in committing a crime is just as guilty as the actual perpetrator. Madden v. State, 162 N.E.3d 549, 557 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021).

[16] There is no bright-line rule for determining accomplice liability. Carter v. State, 235 N.E.3d 875, 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied. The particular facts and circumstances of each case determine whether a person was an accomplice. Id. We consider the following four factors: “(1) presence at the scene of the crime; (2) companionship with another engaged in criminal activity; (3) failure to oppose the crime; and (4) a defendant's conduct before, during, and after the occurrence of the crime.” Garland v. State, 788 N.E.2d 425, 431 (Ind. 2003). The State need not show a preconceived plan; it must merely demonstrate concerted action or participation in an illegal act. Mitchell v. State, 742 N.E.2d 953, 955 (Ind. 2001).

[17] Here, Powell arranged the drug buy. During the transaction, Powell asked if he could show a sample to someone in the car. Powell returned to the house with a revolver and tried to rob Cullens, leading to a scuffle over the gun and shots being fired out of the house. When the ammunition was spent, Powell let go of the revolver and ran from the house. From her position in the basement, Danielle saw someone outside shooting toward the house. Carrillo's neighbor also saw a man shooting toward Carrillo's house and heard someone yell, “[K]ick the back door in.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 185. And Powell told Ybarra he was at the house with someone else. The second person at Carrillo's house on April 27, 2021, was never identified. But they did not have to be. Section 35-41-2-4 states in part that a person can be guilty as an accomplice even if the other person has not been prosecuted or convicted of the offense.

[18] It is not our role as an appellate court to substitute our judgment for the factfinder's in weighing the evidence or assessing witness credibility. Smith v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1211, 1222 (Ind. 2015). Here, the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the jury's verdict show Powell was at Carrillo's house with another person and at a minimum, aided, induced, or caused the crime.

Conclusion

[19] The State's evidence was sufficient to support the jury's determination that Powell was guilty of murder as an accomplice.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(2) (2018).

2.   I.C. §§ 35-42-1-1(1) and 35-41-2-4 (1977).

3.   I.C. § 35-42-5-1(a)(1) (2017).

4.   I.C. § 35-42-5-1(a)(1) & (a)(2).

5.   I.C. § 35-42-5-1 (a)(1).

6.   The State also sought a firearm enhancement, but the jury was deadlocked on that allegation.

7.   During these proceedings, Powell moved to dismiss the charges against him pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(C). The trial court denied the motion. Powell states the issue for appeal in his brief as whether the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss pursuant to Criminal Rule 4, see Appellant's Br. at 4, but the substance of his argument does not address this issue, see id. at 9–12. To the extent Powell intended to challenge the Criminal Rule 4(C) ruling, it is waived for failure to make cogent argument. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8). We address only the sufficiency claim.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.