Trevion Shaver, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Trevion Shaver inflicted numerous blunt force injuries on three-year-old K.W., killing her. Following a bench trial, Shaver was convicted of murder, and he now appeals, raising one issue for our review: Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] During the summer of 2020, Shaver learned that K.W. was likely his daughter whom he shared with Vanina Weathersby.¹ Shortly thereafter, Shaver began spending time with K.W. and watching her when Weathersby needed childcare.

[4] On October 12, 2020, Shaver picked up K.W. from Weathersby and left her at his cousin's house in South Bend around 1:00 p.m., so he could spend time with friends. While at the cousin's house, K.W. ate, napped, played, did not exhibit any signs of injury, and otherwise appeared healthy.

[5] More than seven hours later, at approximately 8:45 p.m., Shaver picked up K.W. from his cousin's house and met Weathersby and one of her friends. During that time, Weathersby thought that K.W. was “acting sad” but she did not “look like she was hurt or nothing.” Tr. Vol. II at 110–11. Shaver then left with K.W. and the two arrived at Weathersby's apartment sometime before 10:00 p.m. Shaver and K.W., with no one else present, were in the apartment until Shaver decided to take K.W. to the hospital.

[6] Shortly before 1:00 a.m. on October 13, Shaver arrived at Memorial Hospital in South Bend (the “Hospital”) with K.W. in the back of a minivan. Shaver motioned to emergency room personnel at the front desk to come outside. Shaver then walked back to the van and got into the driver's seat. Hospital personnel approached the van and saw K.W. lying down and unresponsive in the back seat. Immediately after they removed K.W.’s limp body from the van, Shaver drove away “so quick[ly], the tires actually squealed.” Tr. Vol. II at 43.

[7] After Shaver dropped off K.W. at the Hospital, he called Weathersby and reported that K.W. had “fainted” but was “okay” and “breathing.” Tr. Vol. II at 111. Shaver told Weathersby that he “had dropped her off at the hospital.” Id. Weathersby immediately drove to the Hospital. While Weathersby was with K.W., she talked to Shaver on the phone again, and he told her that he “chastised” K.W. because she “peed on herself.” Id. at 113. Shaver stated that he tried to put K.W. in the bathtub, sprayed Bactine on her, and “her arm ended up going limp.” Id. Shaver then told Weathersby that K.W. had a seizure and he tried to pry her mouth open with a butter knife.

[8] K.W. remained nonresponsive at the Hospital, her breathing was shallow, and medical personnel observed bruising to her torso. Further examination revealed multiple bruises on K.W.’s chest and back area as well as a punctured lung. It was determined that K.W. was brain dead and in a coma when she arrived at the Hospital.

[9] Because of K.W.’s condition, the St. Joseph County Police Department's homicide team was activated. During the early morning hours of October 13, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Weathersby's apartment. When they entered the residence, the bathtub water was running, and a wet pink child's shirt was laying on the floor. A bottle of Bactine and a bloody tissue were observed on the bathroom floor that contained Shaver's and K.W.’s DNA. K.W. died two days later.

[10] Forensic pathologist Dr. Scott Wagner performed an autopsy on K.W. and determined that K.W. had sustained blunt force injuries to her head causing bleeding and swelling on her brain that resulted in her death. Dr. Wagner also believed that K.W.’s traumatic brain injury likely occurred one to two hours before her arrival at the Hospital. He further opined that K.W. would have experienced symptoms immediately after the injuries were inflicted, including pain, vomiting, and crying before becoming unresponsive. Given the nature of K.W.’s injuries, Dr. Wagner concluded that K.W.’s manner of death was homicide.

[11] Shaver offered various explanations about what happened to K.W. In addition to the statements he made to Weathersby, Shaver told one of his cousins-in-law that he “whooped” K.W. because she had peed on herself. Tr. Vol. II at 203, 217-18. Shaver told another cousin that K.W. opened the van door and had fallen out of the vehicle while he was driving. Shaver later told that same cousin that K.W. had wet the bed, so “he had ran her some bath water, sprayed some type of ointment on her. And he said maybe it had probably gotten on to her face. And she fell off from there and hit her head on the wall ․” Tr. Vol. II at 141. While Shaver was telling his cousin this version of events, he also “said that he had chastised [K.W.] and maybe took it too far.” Id. And during a recorded jail call, Shaver stated that he “shook” K.W. St.’s Ex. 245 at 09:22.

[12] On October 30, the State charged Shaver with murder ² and aggravated battery as a Level 1 felony ³ . Following a three-day bench trial in December 2023, Shaver was found guilty as charged. At Shaver's sentencing hearing, the trial court entered a judgment of conviction on the murder count and sentenced him to 55 years of incarceration. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support Shaver's Conviction for Murder

[13] Shaver argues that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to support the murder conviction. Our Supreme Court has explained our standard of review for such a claim as follows:

Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims trigger a deferential standard of review in which we “neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the jury.” Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018). A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if “there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015). In conducting that review, we consider only the evidence that supports the jury's determination, not evidence that might undermine it. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024).

Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024).

[14] To convict Shaver of murder under Indiana Code section 35-42-1-1, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally killed K.W. While Shaver does not challenge a specific element of the offense, he maintains that his conviction must be reversed because the State failed to prove that K.W.’s fatal injury occurred when K.W. was in his “care and custody.” Appellant's Br. at 4. That is, Shaver claims that the State did not meet its burden because it relied on circumstantial evidence and here, the medical evidence as to the timing of K.W.’s injuries was based only on “speculation and possibilities.” Id. at 12.

[15] As our Supreme Court observed in Young v. State:

Our state constitution mandates that, in any criminal case, “the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.” Ind. Const. art. 1, § 19. It is the role of the ․ fact-finder, “to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction.” Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). When there are conflicts in the evidence, the [fact-finder] must resolve them. Lott v. State, 690 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. 1997). This responsibility means that a criminal trial is “the ‘main event’ at which a defendant's rights are to be determined.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 859, 114 S.Ct. 2568, 129 L.Ed.2d 666 (1994)(internal citation omitted).

Equally critical to the trial process is the federal guarantee that nobody may be convicted “except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). To preserve the [fact-finder's] primacy in determining whether the State has met this burden, appellate courts “consider only the evidence most favorable to the State together with all reasonable and logical inferences which may be drawn therefrom.” Lyles v. State, 970 N.E.2d 140, 142 (Ind. 2012). A conviction must be affirmed unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000). Hence, “the task for us, as an appellate tribunal, is to decide whether the facts favorable to the verdict represent substantial evidence probative of the elements of the offenses.” Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 147.

198 N.E.3d 1172, 1776 (Ind. 2022).

[16] “[I]t it is well-settled that ‘circumstantial evidence alone’ can sustain a murder conviction.” Hancz-Barron, 235 N.E.3d at 1244–45 (quoting Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 134 (Ind. 2016)). Circumstantial evidence will be deemed sufficient if inferences may reasonably be drawn that enable the trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Young, 198 N.E.3d at 1182.

[17] Here, the evidence in support of the verdict established that blunt force trauma to K.W. probably occurred within an hour or two of her arrival at the Hospital. Shaver picked up K.W. shortly before 9:00 p.m. on October 12 and he arrived at Weathersby's residence with K.W. sometime before 10:00 p.m. Dr. Wagner's testimony demonstrated that K.W.’s fatal injury occurred when Shaver was alone with her.

[18] The evidence further showed that K.W. was acting normally before Shaver picked her up, as she was eating, playing and watching television. Witness testimony established that K.W. had not been disciplined while she was at Shaver's cousin's residence, and K.W. exhibited no signs of injury during her visit with Shaver's relatives. To be sure, Dr. Wagner testified that K.W.’s injuries would have been apparent immediately after the traumatic head injury, in that she would have suffered pain, vomiting, and “alteration of consciousness.” Tr. Vol. II at 82, 93, 95. K.W. lacked any of those symptoms before Shaver was alone with K.W.

[19] Indeed, the evidence established that K.W.’s symptoms occurred only when Shaver was alone with K.W., and Shaver admitted that K.W. became unresponsive and suffered a seizure while she was in his care. Shaver told others that he became violent with K.W., in that he “whooped” her and may have “gone too far.” Tr. Vol. II at 114, 141. Shaver also admitted that he “shook” K.W. during a telephone conversation at the jail while discussing her injuries. St.’s Ex. 245 at 09:22.

[20] Based on the foregoing, the State presented sufficient evidence that K.W. suffered fatal brain injuries during the hours that she was alone with Shaver, and that he inflicted those injuries. See, e.g., Lush v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1191, 1196-97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (finding medical testimony establishing that child's injuries were only a few hours old, along with evidence that she was in defendant's care, was sufficient to show that the defendant inflicted the child's injuries). We therefore affirm Shaver's murder conviction.

[21] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Shaver declined a paternity test and chose to accept K.W. as his daughter.

2.   Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1).

3.   I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5.

Felix, Judge.

Judges Pyle and Weissmann concur. Pyle, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.