Devontae Curtis Tate, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Devonte Curtis Tate appeals his conviction for criminal recklessness, a Level 5 felony, claiming that the trial court erred in admitting photographs of the crime scene into evidence. Specifically, Tate claims that photos showing a child's personal items in the bedroom where a bullet was lodged were irrelevant and prejudicial in that they merely “stoke[d] the jury's passions.” Appellant's Brief at 2.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] During the early morning hours of March 11, 2021, Benji Peterson, his wife, and their two children were asleep in their Avon residence when Tate peppered it with bullets. Two bullets struck the Petersons’ vehicles that were parked out front, and two struck the house. One of the bullets pierced the garage wall and the other penetrated the Petersons’ teenage son's (the teen) bedroom wall. The teen was lying in his bed that was parallel to the wall when the bullet struck.

[4] Tate's intended target was Dalen Willis-Sharpe, who occupied the house next door to the Petersons and had been living there with his girlfriend, Nia Hardimon. Willis-Sharpe and Hardimon recently ended their relationship, and Hardimon abruptly moved from the residence. Hardimon, however, had inadvertently left some of her belongings at the residence, so she asked Tate and another friend to accompany her to retrieve her property.

[5] Tate drove the others to the residence where they encountered Willis-Sharpe. Hardimon and Willis-Sharpe began to argue and when the conflict escalated, Willis-Sharpe grabbed a shotgun from his garage and fired a warning shot at the ground. Although Tate drove away from the scene with the others, the group returned a short time later and entered Willis-Sharpe's residence through the back door. When they saw Willis-Sharpe, another argument ensued, and Willis-Sharpe again retrieved his shotgun.

[6] As Tate started to walk away, he asked Willis-Sharpe if he wanted to put down the gun and “fight this out like a man.” Transcript Vol. III at 173-75. In response, Willis-Sharpe walked to Tate's vehicle, punched a hole in the windshield with his shotgun, and began to walk back to his residence. Tate then got into his vehicle, pulled up behind Willis-Sharpe, and fired multiple rounds from his handgun in Willis-Sharpe's direction. Willis-Sharpe ran back to his house without returning fire. The bullets from Tate's gun not only hit Willis-Sharpe's residence, but also struck the Petersons’ residence and vehicles.

[7] Detective Jesse Fulwider with the Hendricks County Sheriff's Department spoke with several witnesses who identified Tate as the individual who fired the shots toward Willis-Sharpe. On March 19, 2021, the State charged Tate with Level 5 felony criminal recklessness and Class B misdemeanor battery. Following a jury trial on June 7, 2023, a jury found Tate not guilty of battery, but it was unable to reach a verdict on the criminal recklessness charge.

[8] During a second trial that commenced in September 2024, Tate objected to the admission of several photographs of the teen's bedroom. Those photos showed the bedroom furnishings and various décor including “pictures of Ninja Turtles” and posters on the wall, some of the teen's collectible toys, and the damage that the bullet caused. Transcript Vol. III at 154-55, 157; Appellant's Appendix Vol. III at 10. Tate claimed that the photos depicting the teen's personal effects were unduly prejudicial because they would inflame the passions of the jury. Tate further argued that the photos were irrelevant because he was not challenging the elements of the charged offense. The trial court determined that because the photographs demonstrated that the room was—or could have been—inhabited, they were relevant and there was no risk of unfair prejudice to Tate. Therefore, the trial court allowed the photographs into evidence.

[9] Tate testified at trial, claiming that he acted in self-defense when he fired the shots toward Willis-Sharpe. More specifically, Tate maintained that after he saw Willis-Sharpe point the rifle at him, he grabbed a handgun from under the seat of his vehicle and fired over his shoulder in Willis-Sharpe's direction while speeding away from the scene. Following the presentation of evidence, Tate was found guilty as charged and was subsequently sentenced.

[10] Tate now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Tate argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting photographs of the bedroom into evidence because they “had no purpose but to inflame the jury's passions and sympathies.” Appellant's Brief at 7. More particularly, Tate maintains that the prejudicial effect of the images in the photos, i.e., the collectibles, cartoon characters, and posters on the wall, far outweighed their limited probative value and “only gilded the lily.” Id. at 10.

[12] A trial court has broad discretion to rule on the admissibility of evidence, and we review its decision only for an abuse of that discretion. Guilmette v. State, 14 N.E.3d 38, 40 (Ind. 2014). A trial court abuses its discretion when its evidentiary decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, and we will reverse only when the error affects a party's substantial rights. Taylor v. State, 223 N.E.3d 260, 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).

[13] Before a photograph may be admitted into evidence, the trial court must first determine that the photograph is relevant. Custis v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1220, 1224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. Evidence is relevant if it has some probative value, even if only slight, that is material to an issue in the case. Harris v. State, 211 N.E.3d 929, 939 (Ind. 2023); see also Ind. Evidence Rule 401. Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. Ind. Evidence Rule 402. And relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice[.]” Ind. Evidence Rule 403.

[14] Tate was charged with criminal recklessness, a Level 5 felony, that required the State to prove that he recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally performed an act that created a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person “by shooting a firearm into an inhabited dwelling.” Ind. Code § 35-42-2-2(a), (b)(2)(A). Tate alleged that he acted in self-defense, which required the State to negate Tate's claim by either rebutting the claim directly, affirmatively showing that he did not act in self-defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief. Larkin v. State, 173 N.E.3d 662, 670 (Ind. 2021).

[15] Here, the photographs depicted the blinds, window frame, and drywall in the teen's bedroom that were damaged by a bullet that Tate fired. Detective Fulwider testified and explained that one of the photos established “where the bullet came to rest.” Transcript Vol. III at 185. The photographs of the teen's bedroom and his possessions therein helped orient the jury to the circumstances of the crime and established that Tate shot into an “inhabited dwelling” as required under I.C. § 35-42-2-2(a), (b)(2)(A). See, e.g., Schnitz v. State, 650 N.E.2d 717, 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (holding that photographs of a crime scene are relevant if they aid the trier of fact in orienting itself to the circumstances surrounding the crime), summarily aff'd., 666 N.E.2d 919 (Ind. 1996). Moreover, Tate's location and where he was aiming when he fired the handgun were critical considerations for the jury when considering and evaluating his self-defense claim. That said, because the photographs were material to both the charged crime and Tate's self-defense claim, they were relevant.

[16] Although the photos were relevant, it must also be determined whether the evidence was prejudicial, and if so, whether the prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value. Birk v. State, 215 N.E.3d 1090, 1095 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). This court has observed that “[a]ll relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial to a defendant.” Barton v. State, 192 N.E.3d 970, 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. Evid. R. 403, however, only prohibits the admission of relevant evidence that is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. And the “bar for unfair prejudice, rather than mere prejudice, is high.” Schnitzmeyer v. State, 168 N.E.3d 1041, 1045 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). To be sure, courts “err on the side of admissibility and consider whether there is risk that a jury will substantially overestimate the value of the evidence or that the evidence will arouse or inflame the passions or sympathies of the jury.” Id.

[17] Here, the photographs depicted the teen's bedroom and his belongings that would typically be found there. Although Tate contends that the photos were unnecessarily admitted into evidence because he was not challenging the elements of the offense charged, he cannot dissolve either the State's burden or the probative value of its evidence by merely conceding an issue at trial. See McClain v. State, 898 N.E.2d 409, 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (holding that a defendant's objection pursuant to Evid. R. 403 and his offer to concede a point generally cannot prevail over the State's choice to offer evidence showing guilt and the circumstances surrounding the offense). In other words, regardless of Tate's self-defense claim and his decision not to challenge the elements of criminal recklessness, the State was still required to prove the elements of the offense. See Amburgey v. State, 696 N.E.2d 44, 45 (Ind. 1998) (holding that although the defendant maintained that a bloody, close-up photograph of the victim's face at the crime scene was irrelevant and prejudicial because he did not dispute shooting or killing the victim, his failure to contest these issues does not alleviate the State's burden of proving them). Moreover, the photographs of the teen's room corroborated the testimony of the State's witnesses and provided evidence that the State required to satisfy its burden of proof under the criminal recklessness statute. See Bowman v. State, 73 N.E.3d 731, 735-36 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (holding that while the State had already introduced a photograph of the victim's injury, which the defendant was not denying he caused, the State needed the victim's “live demonstration during trial to carry its burden of proof”), trans. denied.

[18] Finally, although Tate maintains that the photographs showing the teen's personal items in the bedroom “posed a serious risk of inflaming the jury's passions,” Appellant's Brief at 10, there is no suggestion that the jury lost its ability to critically examine the evidence and apply the law to these circumstances. In short, Tate has not demonstrated that the probative value of the crime scene photographs was substantially outweighed by any potential for unfair prejudice. For all these reasons, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the crime scene photos into evidence.

[19] Judgment affirmed.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Judges Pyle and DeBoer concur. Pyle, J. and DeBoer, J., concur.