MARTIN v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] A jury determined Nathaniel Martin fatally shot Ayania Coker during a vehicle chase. Martin appeals his convictions of murder, a felony, and assisting a criminal, a Level 5 felony, arguing the State failed to present sufficient evidence. The police gathered evidence against Martin that includes witness testimony, footage from security cameras, and mobile phone location records. Concluding that the evidence is sufficient, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 5, 2021, at around 3:00 p.m., Ayania Coker and her friend, Laurance Gray, were at a convenience store in Fort Wayne. She made a purchase in the store and returned to her car. Coker drove away, with Gray sitting in the front passenger seat.

[3] Soon after they left the store, Coker cursed and sped up. She told Gray someone was following them. When Gray looked back, he saw a white car with a handgun sticking out of the passenger side window. Gray ducked as he heard seven to nine bullets striking Coker's car. One of the shots shattered Coker's rear window. Gray believed that the shooter was aiming at Coker.

[4] Miguel Garcia, who lived in the area, was at home when he heard the sound of vehicles speeding down his street. He looked out a window and saw two cars pass by. The second car was a white Ford Fusion, with tinted windows. A man was leaning out of the Fusion's passenger side window, shooting at the first car. Garcia, who heard at least two gunshots, determined the man was in his twenties. He also noted that the Fusion had a temporary license plate.

[5] Around the same time, a door camera at a different house had a view of the vehicle chase. A recording showed that at 3:08 p.m., a white car sped down the street with a man leaning out of the passenger side window, pointing a gun.

[6] After the shots, Gray looked down and saw blood and “parts of [Coker's] head” on his leg. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 199. Coker's eyes were rolling back in her head even as the car continued to move forward. Gray grabbed the steering wheel and pulled over, causing the car to crash into a parked truck. He got out and dragged Coker out of her seat, putting her on the ground.

[7] Janoah Norris arrived on the scene just after the vehicle collision. She saw a white car with heavily tinted windows driving away. Norris also saw Coker on the ground and Gray hysterically crying, “they shot her, they shot her.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 173. She called 911.

[8] Officer Cody McBride of the Fort Wayne Police Department was dispatched to investigate. When he arrived, he saw the crashed vehicles and Coker laying on the ground, with Gray kneeling over her. She was still breathing. Officer McBride questioned Gray while medical personnel attended to Coker.

[9] Coker was transported to a hospital, where she died. A pathologist performed an autopsy and recovered bullet fragments from her brain.

[10] Meanwhile, officers went to the convenience store and looked at security camera recordings. They saw a white Ford Fusion follow Coker's car as she drove away. The officers noted the Fusion had several distinct characteristics, including a temporary license plate, a red sticker on the back, and damage to a specific location. They advised other officers to be on the lookout for the car.

[11] Later that evening, the lead detective on the case, Benjamin MacDonald, was notified that an officer had found a Ford Fusion matching the description, parked near a house. The officer read the Fusion's temporary license plate and checked the registration. He learned the vehicle was registered to Martin.

[12] Several officers who were watching the Fusion noticed a group of people leaving the house. One person entered the Fusion, and the others got into another car. The two cars drove off together. The officers notified Detective MacDonald and followed the two cars.

[13] Detective MacDonald caught up to the surveilling officers, and they split up to stop the cars. One group of officers stopped the Fusion, which was being driven by Shane Smith. Other officers stopped the other car, in which they found three people, including Martin. He was carrying two mobile phones, and the police subsequently traced the subscriber data for those phones back to Martin.

[14] Smith later told the officers that Martin had hired him several days before December 5 to perform home renovation work and that he had seen Martin holding a gun before December 5. On the evening of December 5, Martin had allowed Smith to drive the Fusion to a hardware store to buy supplies. Next, at Smith's request, Martin met him and two other people at the house where the officer had spotted the Fusion. Martin, Smith, and the other two people decided to go to Martin's house. As they were leaving, Martin told Smith to drive the Fusion, gave him a backpack, and got in the back seat of the other car. During the drive, and shortly before the police stopped the Fusion, Martin called Smith to say, “the police are behind you” and “don't talk to anybody about anything.” Tr. Vol. 3, p. 87.

[15] On December 5 and over the next few days, a crime scene investigator inspected the path of the vehicle chase. He recovered numerous nine-millimeter shell casings, and subsequent testing showed they were fired from the same gun. The investigator also searched Martin's home, where he found an empty box for a nine-millimeter handgun.

[16] When the investigator searched the Fusion, he found a nine-millimeter handgun in the backpack that Martin had handed to Smith. Further investigation revealed that the handgun: (1) did not fire the shots that hit Coker's car and killed her; and (2) did not match the box that officers found in Martin's home. Finally, Martin's fingerprints were found on a bottle in the Fusion.

[17] Meanwhile, a detective obtained location data for one of Martin's mobile phones. The data showed that the phone was at the site of the shooting when it occurred. The data also showed the phone was at or near Martin's home, not far from the location of the shooting, when someone made a call at 3:15 p.m.

[18] The State charged Martin with murder, a felony, and with assisting a criminal, a Level 5 felony. The jury determined Martin was guilty as charged, and this appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[19] Martin argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support either conviction. “When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses.” Pigott v. State, 219 N.E.3d 808, 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). We instead consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. Id. “We will affirm a conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” O'Connor v. State, 234 N.E.3d 242, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).

I. Murder – Accomplice Liability

[20] To obtain a conviction of murder as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Martin (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) killed (4) Coker. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (2018); Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 22. In addition, the State charged Martin as an accomplice. The General Assembly has provided:

A person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to commit an offense commits that offense, even if the other person:

(1) has not been prosecuted for the offense;

(2) has not been convicted of the offense; or

(3) has been acquitted of the offense.

Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4 (1977).

[21] The accomplice liability statute permits a defendant to be found guilty as an accomplice without proof the defendant committed every element of the underlying crime. Jackson v. State, 222 N.E.3d 321, 336-37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. We consider four factors when determining whether the State presented sufficient evidence that the defendant acted as an accomplice: “ ‘(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.’ ” Id. at 337 (quoting Garland v. State, 788 N.E.2d 425, 431 (Ind. 2003)).

[22] Martin argues that no eyewitnesses placed him at the scene of the shooting. In essence, he claims that the lack of direct evidence critically undermines the State's case. But a guilty verdict may be based solely on circumstantial evidence. See Pierce v. State, 705 N.E.2d 173, 175 (Ind. 1998) (affirming murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence surrounding shooting death despite lack of eyewitnesses). Circumstantial evidence is evidence that is “ ‘based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.’ ” Hampton v. State, 961 N.E.2d 480, 489 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 636 (9th ed. 2009)). On appellate review, we “need not determine that circumstantial evidence is adequate to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but only that an inference may reasonably be drawn which supports the finding.” Pierce, 705 N.E.2d at 175.

[23] Here, Smith saw Martin holding a gun several days before Coker's murder. Martin's car was recorded on video chasing Coker's car, with a person leaning out of the passenger side window firing the fatal shot at Coker. Martin's mobile phone data places the phone at the exact site of the shooting at the time of the shooting, and five minutes later, his phone made an outgoing call not far from the shooting. Police officers spotted Martin near his car several hours later, and when they arrested him, he had the mobile phone.

[24] In addition, a crime scene investigator found Martin's fingerprints on a bottle in his car, and a later search of Martin's home produced an empty box for a nine-millimeter handgun, which was the type of gun used in Coker's murder. Based on the facts and circumstances, the jurors could have reasonably concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin accompanied the shooter and facilitated, rather than opposed, the murder. See Jackson, 222 N.E.3d at 337 (circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain murder conviction as accomplice; mobile phone records and DNA evidence placed Jackson in group performing drive-by shooting). Martin's remaining arguments are, in substance, requests to reweigh the evidence, which our standard of review forbids.

II. Assisting a Criminal

[25] To convict Martin of assisting a criminal, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Martin (2) with the intent to hinder the apprehension or punishment of (3) another person to whom Martin is not a parent, child or spouse (4) harbored, concealed, or otherwise assisted the person (5) who committed murder. Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-5(a) (2016); Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 24. Proof of intent to hinder may be established by circumstantial evidence. Jacobs v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1175, 1179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

[26] Martin first claims there is no evidence he intended to hinder the investigation into Coker's murder and conceal his companion. We disagree. After the shooting, Martin could have reasonably suspected that the police would be looking for his car. Later that day, Martin had Smith drive the Fusion back to his house while he traveled in another vehicle. He also gave Smith a backpack that contained a nine-millimeter handgun. Although that handgun was not used in the murder, it was the same type. The jury could have reasonably inferred that Martin was attempting to implicate Smith or, at the very least, muddy the evidentiary waters. In any event, Martin called Smith while they were in transit and told him to refrain from talking with the police. This evidence is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin was attempting to conceal the involvement of his companion and himself in Coker's murder. See Jacobs, 148 N.E.3d at 1180 (sufficient evidence supported conviction of assisting criminal; circumstantial evidence demonstrated Jacobs tried to create false alibi for person who was suspected of committing murder).

[27] Finally, Martin argues the jury's verdicts are “fundamentally inconsistent” because jurors found him guilty of murder and of assisting a criminal. Appellant's Br. p. 18. But our Supreme Court has held, “[j]ury verdicts in criminal cases are not subject to appellate review on grounds that they are inconsistent, contradictory, or irreconcilable.” Beattie v. State, 924 N.E.2d 643, 649 (Ind. 2010). We need not further address Martin's argument.

Conclusion

[28] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[29] Affirmed.

Baker, Senior Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.