Savion P. Mathis-Phillips, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Savion P. Mathis-Phillips appeals his convictions for Level 3 felony aggravated battery and Class A misdemeanor unlawful carrying of a handgun. He argues that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Just before 3:00 a.m. on December 6, 2022, Mathis-Phillips was sitting in his car in the parking lot of a Taco Bell in Fort Wayne. He had a handgun in a holster on his hip. Lucas Salter, who was intoxicated after drinking at a bar, pulled into the parking lot and parked near Mathis-Phillips. Salter exited his car with his shirt partially removed and approached Mathis-Phillips's car. As Salter stood in front of the car looking at Mathis-Phillips through the windshield, Mathis-Phillips took his gun from the holster. Salter, who was unarmed, started walking to the driver's side of the car, and Mathis-Phillips placed the gun on the dashboard and yelled, “I'm gonna kill your ass. Back the f*** up.” Ex. 78 00:41-00:45. Salter then moved quickly toward the driver's side door and windshield. Mathis-Phillips yelled “Back up” but then immediately shot through the windshield, striking Salter in the face. Id. at 00:45-00:47. Salter was badly injured but was able to run away. The entire interaction lasted about twenty seconds and was captured on video from inside Mathis-Phillips's car.

[3] Mathis-Phillips drove away from the scene but then called 911 and returned. He spoke to a detective and said he did not understand why Salter approached his car but thought he “was gonna kick his ass or steal his car.” Tr. Vol. III p. 22. Mathis-Phillips worked for the Indiana Department of Correction and had been in the Army Reserve, and in his trunk officers found two tactical gun belts, two jackets and a shirt with Department of Correction emblems, multiple sets of handcuffs, zip ties, a tactical vest, four pistol holsters, and a bulletproof vest.

[4] The State charged Mathis-Phillips with Level 3 felony aggravated battery, Class A misdemeanor unlawful carrying of a handgun (based on having a juvenile adjudication for robbery), and a firearm enhancement. A jury trial was held, and Mathis-Phillips claimed self-defense. Before the presentation of evidence on the second day of trial, the State informed the court that it intended to solicit testimony about the items found in Mathis-Phillips's trunk. Mathis-Phillips objected, arguing that the evidence would “just be inflammatory and not proof of anything.” Tr. Vol. II p. 174. The court overruled the objection and allowed the testimony. The State also presented evidence that Mathis-Phillips had pepper spray in the driver's door that he could have used instead of shooting Salter.

[5] The jury rejected Mathis-Phillips's claim of self-defense and found him guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years in the Department of Correction.

[6] Mathis-Phillips now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Mathis-Phillips contends the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the items found in his trunk. He cites Indiana Evidence Rule 403, which provides, “The 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.” Mathis-Phillips argues that the probative value of the items was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. “Trial courts are given wide latitude in weighing probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice, and we review that determination for abuse of discretion.” Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1193 (Ind. 2021).

[8] Mathis-Phillips asserts that the evidence had little or no probative value because the items were in his trunk and he had no time to access them as “[t]he situation was occurring rapidly.” Appellant's Br. p. 9. He then contends the evidence was “particularly prejudicial” because his possession of the items “could suggest that he was some sort of ‘gun nut’ just looking for someone to get into an altercation with or that he was looking for trouble that night.” Id. at 10. The State argues the evidence was relevant for a different reason: to show that Mathis-Phillips “was trained to assess whether someone posed a threat, and if so, to respond to that threat without resorting to deadly force as his first option.” Appellee's Br. p. 12.

[9] The State's argument that Mathis-Phillips's possession of the equipment proves he had self-defense training is largely speculative, so we agree with Mathis-Phillips that the evidence had minimal probative value. However, the danger of unfair prejudice was also very low. First, Mathis-Phillips legally possessed the items, and the jury was never told otherwise. More importantly, his possession of the items was explained by the fact that he worked for the Department of Correction and had been in the Army Reserve. Given that information, it was highly unlikely the jury would conclude that Mathis-Phillips was simply a “gun nut” out looking for trouble. Mathis-Phillips has not shown that the probative value of the items was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion under Evidence Rule 403, and we affirm Mathis-Phillips's convictions.

[10] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Senior Judge Crone concur. Altice, C.J., and Crone, Sr. J., concur.