David Ice, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In June of 2022, the State charged David Ice with the murder of Darryl Ransom, and, following a two-day trial in October of 2024, a jury found Ice guilty of murder. Ice challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his murder conviction, specifically contending that the State failed to prove that he had shot Ransom. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 3, 2022, Ice invited his friend Bethany Eaton to his home for drinks. After Eaton joined Ice at his home, he told her that he wanted to go to the house of their mutual friend, Ransom, to buy cocaine. The pair took an Uber to Ransom's home, and Eaton stayed in the Uber while Ice went inside. About ten minutes later, the pair returned to Ice's home. After Ice used the cocaine he had purchased, he became upset and complained to Eaton that the cocaine smelled “off” and that it was “clogging his nose.” Tr. Vol. III p. 165.

[3] Ice called Ransom, and Eaton overheard him telling Ransom, “[B]ro, this is -this is not cool, bro, I thought we were better than this, this stuff has been stepped on.” Tr. Vol. III p. 166. Ice, now irate, told Ransom that he wanted his sixty dollars back and would be coming to get it. Following his telephone call with Ransom, Ice told Eaton that he knew a person, “Smud,” who could take them back to Ransom's house. After Ice and Eaton arrived at Smud's house, Smud drove the three of them to Ransom's house.

[4] When the group arrived at Ransom's house, Ice told Eaton, “I'm going to go inside and get my money back” and “I'll be right back.” Tr. Vol. III p. 170. Smud, who was still in the vehicle with Eaton, turned the volume on the radio up. Eaton did not see anyone except Ice go into or come out of Ransom's home in the fifteen to twenty minutes that Ice was in Ransom's home. When Ice returned to the car, Smud “drove very fast away.” Tr. Vol. III p. 171. According to Eaton, Ice was wearing a “gray hoodie and gray sweatpants.” Tr. Vol. III p. 183.

[5] During Ice's second visit to Ransom's home, Ransom's fifteen-year-old son, D.H., was in an upstairs bedroom playing video games. D.H. came downstairs to the kitchen and saw his father standing in the living room with a “decently tall light-skinned” man, unknown to D.H., with a beard and shaved head. Tr. Vol. III p. 152. The man was “in a full gray jumpsuit.” Tr. Vol. III p. 152. After D.H. returned to the upstairs bedroom, he heard his father and Ice yelling. D.H. noticed that his father was yelling in a “desperate tone” that he had never heard before. Tr. Vol. III pp. 151–52. Although D.H. could not make out what Ice was yelling, he heard his father yell, “[Y]ou're not about to kill me over some money,” and “I can call her right now[,]” and “she won't wake up. I can try to call her.” Tr. Vol. III p. 153. Ransom repeated the last statement two more times.

[6] After that, D.H. heard tussling and stomping, followed by three gunshots and the slam of the front door. D.H. heard a car drive off. Fearing that Ice would come upstairs, D.H. climbed out of the window and onto the roof. After a few minutes had passed, D.H. collected himself and came downstairs, only to find his father laying on his side with blood on the wall behind him. D.H. screamed and ran back upstairs, where he woke up his father's girlfriend, who called the police. Police arrived and found that Ransom was deceased. Ranson had been shot five times, including two fatal shots through the chest.

[7] The night of Ransom's death, Ice had been wearing a GPS ankle monitor, examination of which confirmed that Ice had first traveled from his home to Ransom's home at 7:48 p.m. and remained there for five to ten minutes before returning home. The data also confirmed that Ice had traveled from his home to Ransom's home the second time at 9:52 p.m. and remained there for fifteen to twenty minutes. Additionally, the data confirmed that Ice had traveled to Smud's home in between his two visits to Ransom's home. Police had been dispatched to Ransom's home at 10:20 p.m.

[8] On June 7, 2022, the State charged Ice with murder. On June 30, 2024, the State added a habitual offender enhancement and a firearm enhancement. On October 23, 2024, the jury found Ice guilty of murder. Ice admitted to being a habitual offender, and the trial court found that he had used a firearm during the murder. The trial court sentenced Ice to fifty-eight years of incarceration for murder with ten years added for each enhancement.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Ice challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for murder. Specifically, Ice contends that the State “failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] was the shooter.” Appellant's Br. p. 11.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (brackets, citations, and quotations omitted). Stated differently, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the convictions, neither reweighing evidence nor reassessing witness credibility” and “affirm the judgment unless no reasonable factfinder could find the defendant guilty.” Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947, 958 (Ind. 2016).

[10] In order to convict Ice of murder, the State was required to prove that Ice had “knowingly or intentionally kill[ed] another human being[.]” Ind. Code § 35- 42-1-1(a). “[I]t is well-settled that ‘circumstantial evidence alone’ can sustain a murder conviction.” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 134 (Ind. 2016)). “Though presence at the scene alone is not sufficient to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a defendant's presence combined with other circumstantial evidence is.” Id. at 1245.

[11] Despite Ice's characterization of the evidence, the record shows that the State provided the jury with ample evidence from which it could reasonably conclude that Ice had murdered Ransom. First, the State presented evidence that Ice was present at the crime scene at and around the time that Ransom was murdered. Eaton went to Ransom's home with Ice twice on the evening of June 3, 2022, and she watched as Ice went into and came out of Ransom's home both times. Ice's GPS monitor's data confirmed that Ice had traveled from his home to Ransom's home the second time at 9:52 p.m. and remained there for fifteen to twenty minutes. Police were dispatched to Ransom's home at 10:20 p.m., approximately eight minutes after Ice had left Ransom's home for the second time.

[12] In addition, the State presented evidence that Ice was the only other person in the room with Ransom when he was murdered. While Eaton sat in Smud's car waiting for Ice to exit Ransom's house, she did not see anyone else go into or out of Ransom's house. Furthermore, D.H., who was in Ransom's house that evening, did not see or hear anyone else in Ransom's home that day other than himself, his father, his father's sleeping girlfriend, and the man who was arguing with Ransom before shots were fired. D.H. described the man arguing with his father as a “tall light-skinned” man with a shaved head and beard, “in a full gray jumpsuit.” Tr. Vol. III p. 152. Eaton testified that Ice had been wearing a “gray hoodie and gray sweatpants” on that night. Tr. Vol. III p. 183. When police arrested Ice roughly six hours after the murder, Ice was wearing a gray jacket and appeared to match D.H.’s description.

[13] Finally, the State presented evidence that Ice had had a motive and the means to murder Ransom. Eaton testified that Ice had been irate about the quality of cocaine that Ransom had sold him. Ice, upset, had called Ransom, and Eaton had overheard him telling Ransom, “[B]ro, this is -- this is not cool, bro, I thought we were better than this, this stuff has been stepped on.” Tr. Vol. III p. 166. Ice had told Ransom that he wanted his sixty dollars back and would be coming to get it. D.H. later heard his father yelling in a “desperate tone” that he had never heard before. Tr. Vol. III p. 151–52. He had heard his father yell, “[Y]ou're not about to kill me over some money.” Tr. Vol. III p. 153. D.H. had heard tussling and stomping, followed by gunshots and the slam of the front door. Additionally, Eaton testified that, after returning from Ransom's home the second time, she had seen Ice with a gun beside him on the couch.

[14] In summary, in light of the substantial circumstantial evidence linking Ice to Ransom's murder, we reject his argument that that there was a “complete lack of tangible evidence” pointing to him as the shooter. This argument amounts to nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Griffith, 59 N.E.3d at 958. We conclude that the State produced sufficient evidence to sustain Ice's murder conviction.

[15] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Bradford, Judge.

Judges May and Mathias concur. May, J., and Mathias, J., concur.