Emmanuel L. Newman, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] After threatening to kill his cousin during an argument, Emmanuel L. Newman left, acquired a rifle, returned to his cousin's apartment, and shot him eight times, killing him. Newman now appeals his sixty-year sentence for murder, arguing it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. He also suggests the trial court improperly weighed aggravating and mitigating factors. Because Newman has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion or that his sentence is inappropriate given his calculated act of familial betrayal, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 27, 2022, Newman was at his cousin Joshua Hopson's apartment in Indianapolis. After an argument during which Newman told Hopson, “I'm going to kill you,” Hopson's girlfriend Asia Bowman drove Newman part of the way home. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 214.)

[3] Later that evening, Newman called Hopson and said he was “going to pull up.” (Id. at 221.) Hopson went outside to meet Newman, who arrived on foot carrying a .22 caliber rifle. Newman approached Hopson, who was unarmed, and shot him multiple times, striking him in the chest, elbow, forearm, knee, shoulder, and back. After shooting Hopson, Newman confirmed to Bowman that it was “a real gun” before fleeing the scene. (Id. at 226.) Hopson died from his gunshot wounds.

[4] The State charged Newman with murder on January 10, 2023. Following a three-day jury trial in August 2024, Newman was found guilty. At the sentencing hearing on September 25, 2024, the trial court identified Newman's criminal history as an aggravator but characterized it as “fairly insignificant.” (Tr. Vol. 4 at 59.) The court also considered the nature of the offense, describing it as a “betrayal of trust” and “[e]xtremely senseless.” (Id.) As mitigating factors, the court recognized Newman's dependents and his PTSD diagnosis related to witnessing his brother's murder a year prior. The trial court sentenced Newman to sixty years in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Discussion and Decision

1. Sentencing Discretion

[5] To the extent Newman suggests the trial court abused its discretion when sentencing him, we note that a trial court abuses its discretion only if it: (1) fails to enter a sentencing statement; (2) enters a sentencing statement that includes reasons not supported by the record; (3) enters a sentencing statement that omits reasons clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration; or (4) enters a sentencing statement that includes reasons that are improper as a matter of law. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490-91 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

[6] Here, the trial court issued a detailed sentencing statement identifying both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The court acknowledged Newman's criminal history as an aggravator but characterized it as “fairly insignificant.” (Tr. Vol. 4 at 59.) The court also recognized several mitigating factors, including Newman's dependents and his PTSD diagnosis. Newman's argument essentially challenges the weight assigned to these factors, but “[t]he relative weight or value assignable to reasons properly found or those which should have been found is not subject to review for abuse.” Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491 (emphasis added). Because Newman's argument addresses only the weight assigned to various factors rather than the identification of those factors, his claim fails to establish an abuse of discretion.

2. Inappropriateness

[7] Newman argues his sixty-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), we may revise a sentence “if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and character of the offender.” Our determination “turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). “In conducting our review, we do not look to see whether the defendant's sentence is appropriate or if another sentence might be more appropriate; rather, the test is whether the sentence is ‘inappropriate.’ ” Barker v. State, 994 N.E.2d 306, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), reh'g denied, trans. denied.

[8] “When considering the nature of the offense, we first look to the advisory sentence for the crime.” McHenry v. State, 152 N.E.3d 41, 46 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). When a sentence deviates from the advisory sentence, “we consider whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense as committed by the defendant that distinguishes it from the typical offense accounted for by our legislature when it set the advisory sentence.” Madden v. State, 162 N.E.3d 549, 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). For murder, the advisory sentence is fifty-five years, with a range of forty-five to sixty-five years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3. Newman received a sixty-year sentence, which is five years above the advisory sentence.

[9] The evidence reveals several aspects of this murder that make it more egregious than a “typical” murder. First, Newman and Hopson were family members who had a pre-existing relationship of trust. Newman frequently visited Hopson and Bowman at their apartment. On the night of the murder, Hopson and Bowman hosted Newman and even helped Newman get part of the way home after their argument.

[10] Second, this murder involved a level of premeditation that renders it particularly troubling. After their initial argument was defused by Bowman driving Newman away, Newman made a deliberate decision to return with a rifle. The sequence of events – leaving the scene, obtaining a weapon, returning specifically to confront Hopson, and then shooting him multiple times – demonstrates calculated planning rather than a spontaneous act. [11] Third, the manner of killing was particularly brutal. Newman shot Hopson eight times with a .22 caliber rifle. The autopsy revealed that Newman shot Hopson from multiple angles, including at least once from behind, suggesting a determined effort to ensure Hopson's death. The chest wound alone caused significant internal damage to vital organs and loss of blood.

[12] Fourth, Newman committed this crime in the presence of Bowman, forcing her to witness her partner's violent death. This inflicted psychological trauma beyond the immediate victim of Newman's crime. These circumstances, taken together, render this murder more egregious than contemplated by the advisory sentence and support a sentence above the advisory.

[13] “When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the defendant's criminal history.” Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Newman's criminal history consists of three juvenile adjudications when he was fourteen years old for acts that, if committed by an adult, would be theft and resisting law enforcement, followed by twenty-four years without criminal convictions. While this history is indeed minimal, as the trial court acknowledged, it does not automatically entitle Newman to a mitigated sentence, particularly given the serious nature of the current offense.

[14] Newman presented evidence that he suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder stemming from witnessing his brother's murder in October 2021, approximately one year before this offense. However, as our courts have noted, evidence of mental health issues does not automatically warrant a reduced sentence without establishing a nexus between those issues and the crime committed. See Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1249 (Ind. 2024) (holding defendant's sentence was not inappropriate based on his mental-health history when he did not present evidence of a nexus between his mental health issues and his crimes).

[15] Although Newman has some positive character indicators – including employment history, role as a provider for his children, and expressions of remorse at sentencing – his actions in this case reveal deeply troubling aspects of his character that we cannot overlook. After explicitly threatening to kill Hopson during their initial argument, Newman later followed through on that threat. His willingness to resolve a family dispute by taking his cousin's life demonstrates poor judgment and an inability to control violent impulses, which reflect negatively on his character.

[16] The betrayal of familial trust is particularly concerning. The violence Newman directed at a family member who had hosted him earlier that same evening demonstrates a troubling capacity to violate basic social norms and expectations. The calculated nature of the killing – obtaining a rifle, returning to confront his unarmed cousin, and shooting him multiple times, including at least once from behind – further reflects poorly on Newman's character.

[17] After considering both the nature of the offense and Newman's character, we cannot say his sixty-year sentence is inappropriate. While Newman presents several mitigating factors related to his character, they do not outweigh the egregious nature of this murder and the troubling character traits revealed by his actions. Newman has not met his burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B). See Slater v. State, 223 N.E.3d 298, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (holding defendant's sentence was not inappropriate even though his offenses were “not particularly heinous”), trans. denied.

Conclusion

[18] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Newman. Additionally, neither the nature of Newman's offense nor his character renders his sixty-year sentence inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm.

[19] Affirmed.

May, Judge.

Judges Weissmann and Scheele concur. Weissmann, J., and Scheele, J., concur.