Jose Rosas, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jose Rosas broke into the home of 51-year-old K.W. (Mother) and attempted to rape Mother in her bedroom. For this, Rosas was convicted of five crimes, including attempted rape and criminal confinement. The State's case relied, in part, on evidence that Rosas's fingerprints were found on Mother's bedroom window as well as Mother's show-up identification of Rosas as the perpetrator shortly after the incident.

[2] On appeal, Rosas argues that the State's fingerprint evidence was not properly authenticated under Indiana Evidence Rule 901. He also claims his dual convictions for attempted rape and criminal confinement constitute substantive double jeopardy, which the State effectively concedes. Finding the fingerprint evidence was properly authenticated and admitted, we affirm all of Rosas's convictions except for that of criminal confinement, which we remand with instructions to vacate on double jeopardy grounds.

Facts

[3] Early one morning, Mother awoke in her bedroom to a male intruder lying on top of her. The intruder covered Mother's mouth and threatened to kill Mother if she made a sound. He then began to pull down Mother's pajama bottoms. When Mother resisted, the intruder punched her in the face and ordered her to insert his penis into her vagina. Mother could feel that the intruder possessed something “cold and metal,” so she stopped resisting and fearfully tried to comply. Tr. Vol. II, p. 132. The intruder never penetrated Mother's vagina, but with his penis between her thighs, he moved back and forth as though he had.

[4] Eventually, the intruder stopped and ordered Mother to lead him out of her home. While walking to the front door, they encountered Mother's daughter, H.W. (Daughter), in the hallway. Mother silently mouthed for Daughter to “run.” Id. Mother then forced the intruder out the door. Not long thereafter, the intruder knocked on the door and demanded reentry to retrieve some items he had left in Mother's bedroom—a boxcutter, a cell phone, and two walkie-talkies. He also shouted, “Where is Garfield Park?” Id. at 151. Meanwhile, Mother and Daughter called 911, locked themselves in a bathroom, and waited for police to arrive.

[5] Mother and Daughter described the intruder to responding police officers as a Hispanic male who wore a white visor, blue Polo shirt, gold chain, khaki pants, and black shoes. Officers quickly began canvassing the area in search of someone matching that description. In an alley near Mother's home, one officer found a blue Polo shirt on the ground. And at a nearby gas station, another officer found Rosas—a Hispanic male wearing a white visor, gray t-shirt, gold chain, khaki pants, and black shoes.

[6] Police separately brought Mother and Daughter to the gas station to view Rosas, and both identified him as the intruder from their home. Rosas was then transported to the police station for questioning. During this interview, Rosas admitted that he had been wearing a blue Polo shirt earlier that day but had taken it off somewhere. He also explained that he was drunk and high, did not recall how he ended up at the gas station, but was trying to find a way home. According to Rosas, he lived near Garfield Park.

[7] The State charged Rosas with five crimes: (1) attempted rape, a Level 1 felony; (2) burglary, a Level 2 felony; (3) criminal confinement, a Level 3 felony; (4) sexual battery, a Level 4 felony; and (5) battery resulting in bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor. At Rosas's jury trial, the State offered into evidence nine “latent print cards” that purportedly contained fingerprints lifted from K.W.’s bedroom window following Rosas's arrest. Tr. Vol. III, p. 13. The trial court admitted the cards as Exhibits 50-58, overruling Rosas's objection as to their authenticity. And later, a fingerprint expert testified that the latent prints on Exhibit 58 were a match for Rosas's fingerprints.

[8] The jury found Rosas guilty as charged, and the trial court entered judgment of conviction for each offense. The court then sentenced Rosas to an aggregate sentence of 30 years with all sentences to run concurrently.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Rosas appeals his five convictions, claiming the trial court erred by admitting the latent print cards into evidence at trial. He also specifically challenges his criminal confinement conviction on substantive double jeopardy grounds. We review the admissibility issue for abuse of discretion and the double jeopardy issue de novo. Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1193 (Ind. 2021) (admissibility); Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227, 237 (Ind. 2020) (double jeopardy).

I. Evidence Admissibility

[10] Rosas argues that the latent print cards were inadmissible because they were not properly authenticated under Indiana Evidence Rule 901. Subsection (a) of that rule provides: “To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Ind. Evid. R. 901(a). Subsection (b) then lists examples of “evidence that satisfies the requirement.” Evid. R. 901(b). Among them is “[t]estimony that an item is what it is claimed to be, by a witness with knowledge.” Evid. R. 901(b)(1).

[11] At trial, the State sought to authenticate the latent print cards through the testimony of Crime Scene Specialist (CSS) Lakota Hodges. CSS Hodges testified that she assisted her supervisor, CSS Joseph Stump, in processing K.W.’s bedroom window for latent fingerprints. According to CSS Hodges, this consisted of her and CSS Stump dusting the window, identifying possible fingerprints, laying pieces of tape over the prints, removing the tape to “lift” the prints, and then placing the tape onto latent print cards. Tr. Vol. III, p. 13. CSS Hodges further testified that she handwrote on each card the area of K.W.’s bedroom window from which each fingerprint had been lifted. And based on her handwriting, CSS Hodges confirmed that State's Exhibits 50-58 were the latent print cards she and CSS Stump created.

[12] Rosas claims CSS Hodges's testimony was insufficient to authenticate the latent print cards because CSS Hodges did not identify which cards contained the fingerprints that she lifted. When specifically asked if she placed the pieces of tape on the cards, CSS Hodges answered: “I did some of them, yes.” Id. at 15. Thus, it is possible that CSS Stump—not CSS Hodges—lifted the incriminating fingerprints that were taped to Exhibit 58.

[13] But the State was not required to prove who specifically lifted each fingerprint to authenticate Exhibits 50-58 as latent print cards containing fingerprints lifted from K.W.’s bedroom window. CSS Hodges identified the exhibits as such, and her testimony established that she was a “witness with knowledge” of what the exhibits were. Evid. R. 901(b)(1). Put simply, either CSS Hodges lifted the fingerprints taped to Exhibit 58 or she witnessed CSS Stump do so.

[14] Finding the latent print cards were properly authenticated, we affirm Rosas's convictions for attempted rape, burglary, sexual battery, and battery resulting in bodily injury. We address Rosas's criminal confinement conviction below.

II. Substantive Double Jeopardy

[15] Rosas argues that his dual convictions for attempted rape and criminal confinement constitute substantive double jeopardy under Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. 2020). The State agrees, noting that it alerted the trial court to the issue at sentencing. Appellee's Br., p. 9. The parties also agree that the appropriate remedy is for the lesser conviction to be vacated. We therefore remand with instructions to vacate Rosas's conviction for Level 3 felony criminal confinement.

Conclusion

[16] We affirm Rosas's convictions for attempted rape, burglary, sexual battery, and battery resulting in bodily injury. But we remand with instructions to vacate Rosas's criminal confinement conviction on double jeopardy grounds.

Weissmann, Judge.

Judges Pyle and Felix concur. Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.