Arieal Smith, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Brown, Judge.

[1] Arieal Smith appeals her conviction for murder and argues the evidence is insufficient to negate the presence of sudden heat. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] At approximately 10:30 p.m. on February 25, 2022, Allan Umphrey, III, an R&B and rap artist who was seeing Ebonie Parks romantically, went to Club Kalakutah in Marion County. At some point, Secoya Williams, who Umphrey had known since he was eleven or twelve years old, arrived at the club with Selena Wilborn.

[3] Parks and her sister, Smith, arrived at the club. Smith participated in and won a “twerk contest.” Transcript Volume III at 82. Williams cheered on Smith and said positive things. At some point, Smith became “[v]ery belligerent,” “was mingling through the bar sections,” and was “making people who were attending the event uncomfortable.” Transcript Volume II at 123. Every time Smith walked past the table where Williams was seated, she would “either knock the table or she would do something that was distracting them or interrupting them or just whatever it was she could do to antagonize them at the moment.” Id. at 124-125. Smith's actions caused Paradise Bradford, the manager of the club, to “get security” and ask her a few times if she was okay or needed anything. Id. at 125.

[4] While Williams and Wilborn were engaged in a conversation, Smith poured a drink on Williams, yelled, and began striking Williams in the back of the head. Williams turned around, and Smith, who “seemed kind of drunk,” struck her in the face. Transcript Volume III at 147. Williams was stunned, shocked, and confused, and she fell down due to the liquor on the floor. Bradford told security to “get [Smith] out.” Transcript Volume II at 127. Jonathan Johnson, who was working as the head of security and a bouncer, grabbed Smith, told her to “chill out and relax,” and moved her to the side. Id. at 148. Smith “kept going, trying to get back over there.” Id. at 149. Johnson began to “raise her up,” and Smith “started bouncing up and down while [he] was raising her up.” Id. Johnson then carried Smith out of the club while she was “[s]creaming and belligerent.” Transcript Volume II at 128. Johnson sat her down outside, and said: “Go ahead, chill out ․ I'm not banning you. You can come back later. But now is not the night.” Id. at 149. Smith and Parks “went straight to the [vehicle] right by the exit door,” Parks entered the driver's side, and Smith entered the passenger's side. Id. at 151.

[5] Meanwhile, Bradford asked Williams if she wanted her to “get her something to clean up,” Williams declined and said she was okay, and Bradford provided her a towel. Id. at 128. Williams's friends began leaving, and Bradford told Williams not to leave and that she would obtain another drink for her and help dry her off. Williams said: “I know, I want to go get my stuff out the car, because they're going to leave. I'm going to come right back in.” Id.

[6] Umphrey exited the club and attempted to converse with Parks who was sitting in the driver's seat and said: “Don't worry about coming home. This is selfish. You know, that's bulls---.” Id. at 189. Williams exited the club and began striking the passenger side window of the vehicle containing Smith with her high-heeled shoe. Williams was “talking like, ‘What's your problem? I thought we was cool. I don't understand what's your problem with me.’ ” Id. at 190. Williams then said, “Oh, she got a gun.” Id. Williams was no longer animated, put her hands up, and began moving back. Umphrey waved at the windshield “in the direction of the passenger, like, ‘Put the gun away. Are you tripping?’ ” Id. at 192. Smith opened the passenger door and fired a shot at Williams who dropped to the ground. Umphrey moved towards Williams, and Smith pointed the gun at him and said, “Yeah, b----.” Id. at 194. Williams died as a result of a gunshot wound to the torso.

[7] Parks and Smith left the scene. Parks did not call 911. Regarding “turning herself in,” Parks asked Smith if she wanted to “go and talk to them,” and Smith said “No” and “[t]hey're going to have to come and get me.” Transcript Volume III at 174.

[8] The State charged Smith with: Count I, murder; Count II, pointing a firearm at Umphrey as a level 6 felony; and Count III, carrying a handgun without a license as a class A misdemeanor. During a consolidated bench trial in which Smith and Parks were defendants, the State presented the testimony of multiple witnesses including Bradford, Johnson, Umphrey, and Wilborn. The court also admitted video of the altercation between Smith and Williams in the club. After the State rested, Parks testified.

[9] After closing arguments, the court commented that it found Parks to be the least credible witness. The court stated:

All that [Williams] did was bang on your window and that it is clear to me from the other forensic evidence that she did raise her hands and she did back off that car. Whether it was just six feet in the same parking spot or 18 feet down at the second one, she backed off.

It is also clear that that door came open by you and you pulled that gun and fired. And in that moment, lies murder. ․

The evidence is sufficient to show that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that [Smith] was not acting under sudden heat.

As to Ms. Parks, the case that the State put on video is correct. It's not that you had to know in that instant that a murder had been committed. But there was enough there for me to know that you were driving away to avoid apprehension. You have given us a version that this crowd came out and there was about to be a mob jump on this [vehicle]. I don't buy that for a second.

People were walking out. I watched the video of the folks in the club. Nobody was coming out with pitchforks and clubs ready to go to battle with people. People were leaving because there was a stupid fight, and somebody got a drink dumped on them and got picked up and escorted out. You heard a bang, you heard your sister say go, and you took off. That is assisting a criminal.

Id. at 233-234. The court found Smith guilty as charged on Counts I and II. It stated that judgment of conviction for Count III would not be entered due to double jeopardy concerns and sentenced Smith to consecutive terms of forty-seven years for Count I, murder, and one year for Count II, pointing a firearm as a level 6 felony.

Discussion

[10] Smith argues that the State failed to rebut her claim that she acted in sudden heat and that her murder conviction should be reduced to voluntary manslaughter. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. Id. We consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Id. We affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. A conviction may be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness or victim. Baltimore v. State, 878 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied.

[11] A person commits murder when the person “knowingly or intentionally kills another human being.” Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1. On the other hand, a person commits voluntary manslaughter when the person knowingly or intentionally kills another human being “while acting under sudden heat.” Ind. Code § 35-42-1-3(a). Sudden heat is a mitigating factor that reduces what otherwise would be murder to voluntary manslaughter. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-3(b). Thus, “[t]he element distinguishing murder from voluntary manslaughter is ‘sudden heat,’ which is an evidentiary predicate that allows mitigation of a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.” Dearman v. State, 743 N.E.2d 757, 760 (Ind. 2001). The Indiana Supreme Court has defined “sudden heat” 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.” Id.

[12] “To obtain a conviction for murder, the State is not required to negate the presence of sudden heat because ‘[t]here is no implied element of the absence of sudden heat in the crime of murder.’ ” Crain v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1223, 1238 (Ind. 2000) (quoting Earl v. State, 715 N.E.2d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 1999)). “However, once a defendant places sudden heat into issue, the State then bears the burden of negating the presence of sudden heat beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. The State “may meet this burden by rebutting the defendant's evidence or affirmatively showing in its case-in-chief that the defendant was not acting in sudden heat when the killing occurred.” Id. Although it is the State's burden to disprove sudden heat once it becomes an issue, its presence is a question of fact for the factfinder. Carroll v. State, 744 N.E.2d 432, 434 (Ind. 2001); Boone v. State, 728 N.E.2d 135, 139 (Ind. 2000) (“Existence of sudden heat is a classic question of fact to be determined by the jury.”), reh'g denied.

[13] While Smith directs us to Park's testimony, the trial court found her testimony to be the least credible. The probative evidence supporting the verdict reveals that only Umphrey and Williams were near the vehicle, nothing was blocking the vehicle, Umphrey's tone was calm and he “seemed kind of sad and upset,” and Williams backed up with her hands in the air when she observed that Smith had a gun. Transcript Volume III at 140. Wilborn testified that the passenger door began to open when Williams was “at the back towards the car” and there was no one else near the passenger door. Id. at 114. When the court asked if anyone was making a commotion and going towards the vehicle or if anyone attempted to impede the vehicle from leaving the parking lot, she answered: “No.” Id. at 149. She also testified that Smith had a smirk on her face after shooting Williams.

[14] Based upon the record, we conclude that there exists evidence of probative value from which a reasonable factfinder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith was guilty of murder and was not acting under sudden heat.

[15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Smith's conviction.

[16] Affirmed.

Trial Court Cause No. 49D31-2203-MR-5827

Judges May and Pyle concur. May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.