RAWLINGS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Christopher Juan Jose Rawlings appeals his conviction for murder.¹ He raises two issues, which we restate as:

1. Whether the State rebutted Rawlings's claim that he killed Aaron Flora in sudden heat; and

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence of a prior inconsistent witness statement.

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 28, 2022, Rawlings visited Gage Mathes, who lived in a tent in the backyard of his father's property in a residential neighborhood in Indianapolis. A number of Mathe's friends also lived there in tents, including “Skeeter[,]”² Charlene Gimbel, Kayla Arbizu, and Aaron Flora. (Tr. Vol. III at 119.) That night, the group was “just hanging out” and using various drugs including fentanyl and methamphetamine. (Id. at 132.)

[3] At approximately 1:00 a.m., after Arbizu and Flora went into their tent to go to bed, Rawlings entered and stood in the doorway of the tent. Arbizu turned around to put an item away and “in the corner of [her] eye” saw Rawlings “lunge at” Flora and stab him in the neck. (Id. at 115.) Arbizu ran out of the tent, and Rawlings followed her. Rawlings then jumped over the fence to leave the property.

[4] Flora exited the tent and staggered around the backyard. Gimbel called 911. Arbizu and Mathes also spoke with the dispatcher. The dispatcher asked who stabbed Flora, and Mathes told the dispatcher that “Pork Chop” stabbed Flora. (Ex. 6 at 3:08.) “Pork Chop” was Rawlings's nickname. (Tr. Vol. III at 107.)

[5] When officers arrived, Flora was deceased and did not have a weapon on him. Officers found a knife in the tent and no other weapons on the scene. Officers spoke with Gimbel, Arbizu, and Mathes, all of whom identified Rawlings as Flora's attacker. At some point thereafter, police arrested Rawlings. Dr. Zachary O'Neill, a forensic pathologist with the Marion County Coroner's Office, conducted Flora's autopsy. He determined Flora's cause of death was “[b]lood loss” from a “stab wound of the neck.” (Id. at 65.)

[6] On September 19, 2022, the State charged Rawlings with murder and on October 5, 2022, alleged he was a habitual offender.³ The trial court held a jury trial on September 16 and 17, 2024.

[7] Arbizu testified she was in the tent she shared with Flora when Rawlings came into the tent and stabbed Flora. On cross examination, Rawlings asked Arbizu if she told “the detective that [she was] not in the tent and did not seeing the stabbing” and Arbizu answered, “That's not true.” (Tr. Vol. III at 126.)

[8] Dr. O'Neill testified on cross examination that he looked at a “Field Deputy Report” prior to determining that Flora's death was a homicide. (Ex. Vol. I at 95.) He explained the report was prepared by Deputy Coroner Rachel Chambon and recorded the statements made by law enforcement personnel at the scene of the crime. Rawlings asked Dr. O'Neill what he read in the report, and the State objected, arguing Dr. O'Neill's testimony regarding what he read in the report was “hearsay within hearsay.” (Tr. Vol. IV at 67.) Rawlings argued he was offering it to impeach Arbizu's earlier testimony that she was in the tent when Rawlings stabbed Flora. He contended that the Field Deputy Report was not hearsay because Detective Melkey and Deputy Coroner Chambon were party opponents by virtue of their status as government employees acting in the scope of their employment. After further argument and research, the trial court sustained the State's objection.

[9] During trial, Rawlings argued he acted in sudden heat when he attacked Flora. He told the trial court that the group had used numerous illegal substances and “everything started getting eerie ․ like sketchy and stuff” after Skeeter arrived. (Id.) He testified he saw a gun in Skeeter's “waistband or in his pocket[.]” (Id. at 99.) Rawlings stated he felt “timid – like, intimidated, seeing -- seeing the gun that was on [Skeeter's] waist.” (Id.) He claimed when he entered Flora and Arbizu's tent, Flora pointed a sawed off single-shot rifle at him, he “panick[ed,]” and stabbed Flora. (Id. at 101.)

[10] The jury returned a guilty verdict on the charge of murder. Rawlings then admitted that he was a habitual offender. The trial court entered a conviction of murder and adjudicated Rawlings a habitual offender. On October 9, 2024, the trial court sentenced Rawlings to sixty years for murder, with a twenty-year habitual offender enhancement, for an aggregate sentence of eighty years.

Discussion and Decision

1. Sufficiency of Evidence

[11] Rawlings argues the State did not present sufficient evidence he murdered Flora because it did not rebut his claim that he acted in sudden heat. When faced with challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, we apply a “well settled” standard of review that leaves determination of the weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses to the fact-finder. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024). “We consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's ruling and will affirm a defendant's conviction unless ‘no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (quoting Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000)).

[12] To prove Rawlings committed murder, the State had to present sufficient evidence that he knowingly or intentionally killed Flores. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1). Rawlings argued instead that he committed only voluntary manslaughter because he killed Flores while acting under sudden heat. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-3. As we explained in Landske v. State:

Once a defendant places sudden heat into issue, the State bears the burden of negating the presence of sudden heat beyond a reasonable doubt. The State may meet this burden by rebutting the defendant's evidence or by affirmatively showing in the State's case-in-chief that the defendant was not acting in sudden heat when the killing occurred. Sudden heat exists when a defendant is provoked by anger, rage, resentment, or terror, to a degree sufficient to obscure the reason of an ordinary person, prevent deliberation and premeditation, and render the defendant incapable of cool reflection. It involves an impetus to kill that arises suddenly.

147 N.E.3d 387, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quotations and internal citations omitted).

[13] Rawlings directs us to his testimony, in which he told the trial court that he was scared when he was at Mathes's house because he saw “a gun on [Skeeter's] waist[.]” (Tr. Vol. IV at 99.) He also stated that the group had ingested multiple illegal substances and “everything started getting eerie, like – like sketchy and stuff” after Skeeter arrived. (Id.) He told the trial court that “people started ․ acting different” and that made him “feel timid” because he again saw the gun in Skeeter's waistband. (Id. at 99-100.) Rawlings testified that shortly thereafter Mathes told him to “go to the tent next door” because Mathes and Skeeter needed to “handle some business.” (Id. at 100.)

[14] Rawlings claimed that shortly after he entered the tent of Flora and Arbizu, Flora pointed a “single-shot rifle” at him. (Id. at 101.) He testified Flora then told him to “give me everything you got on you.” (Id.) Rawlings told the trial court he “started panicking[,]” took out the knife that was in his pocket, and “rushed” Flora. (Id. at 101-2.) He stated that he did not remember stabbing Flora because “[e]verything happened so fast.” (Id. at 102.) Rawlings contends his “panic and fear for his life” amounted to the “impetus to suddenly stab Aaron Flora to escape his terror.” (Br. of Appellant at 13-14.) However, Rawlings's argument based on his alternate version of events that night is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See, e.g., Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783 (appellate court does not reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses).

[15] Arbizu testified that Flora did not threaten Rawlings with any weapon and that Flora never spoke to Rawlings when Rawlings entered the tent. Except for the knife Rawlings used to stab Flora, there were no weapons found on the scene. Regarding his apprehension of the situation outside the tent, Rawlings acknowledged that he could have left the property. Instead of leaving the property, Rawlings chose to enter the tent even though he felt uneasy. Additionally, Rawlings testified the knife was already unfolded in his pocket and ready to be used when he entered the tent that Arbizu and Flora were using. Therefore, the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Rawlings's claim that he acted in sudden heat when he stabbed Flora. See, e.g., Griffin v. State, 963 N.E.2d 685, 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (evidence that a defendant “had a knife on his person when he entered” the victim's home was sufficient to prove that he did not act in sudden heat).

2. Exclusion of Evidence

[16] Rawlings also argues the trial court abused its discretion when it did not allow Dr. O'Neill to testify about the contents of the Deputy Field Report prepared by Deputy Coroner Chambon based on information from Detective Melkey. We review a trial court's decision on the admission or exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Mack v. State, 23 N.E.3d 742, 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. “A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court misapplies the law.” Id.

[17] At issue in particular is the Deputy Field Report's indication that Arbizu told Detective Melkey that she was not in the tent at the time of Flora's murder. Rawlings wanted to admit that statement because it contradicted Arbizu's testimony at trial that she was in the tent when Rawlings stabbed Flora. However, we need not determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding that evidence because any possible error was harmless.

Errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence are to be disregarded as harmless error unless they affect the substantial rights of a party. In other words, we will find an error in the exclusion of evidence harmless if its probable impact on the jury, in light of all of the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the defendant's substantial rights.

Barnhart v. State, 15 N.E.3d 138, 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (internal quotations omitted).

[18] Rawlings does not deny he stabbed Flora, and Rawlings testified that Arbizu was in the tent when he stabbed Flora. The State presented evidence that a knife was the only weapon found on the scene. The security camera footage shows Rawlings fleeing the scene and Flora stumbling after being stabbed. The recording of the 911 call includes a statement made by a male on the scene indicating Rawlings stabbed Flora. Based thereon, we conclude that any possible error in the trial court's denial of Rawlings's request to allow Dr. O'Neill to testify about the contents of the Deputy Field Report was harmless. See, e.g., Hayko v. State, 211 N.E.3d 483, 493 (Ind. 2023) (exclusion of evidence was harmless error because sufficient independent evidence supported conviction), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 570 (2024).

Conclusion

[19] The State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Rawlings's defense that he killed Flora in sudden heat. Additionally, the trial court's exclusion of Dr. O'Neill's testimony regarding the Deputy Field Report was harmless, if error at all. Accordingly, we affirm.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.

2.   Skeeter's legal name is not in the record. Skeeter is also referred to as “Skeet” during testimony, but for clarity and consistency, “Skeeter” was using throughout this opinion.

3.   Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8.

May, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.