HEDRICK v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Shane C. Hedrick appeals his conviction for murder. He contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In January 2024, Hedrick lived in an Evansville trailer park with his girlfriend, Loreena Nance, and their two children, almost two-year-old J.H. and six-month-old K.H. Since September 2023, Nance worked every day at a Speedway gas station while Hedrick, who was unemployed, stayed home to take care of J.H. and K.H. Nance and Hedrick argued frequently, and Nance began seeing another man and spending some nights away from the trailer.

[3] On January 24, 2024, Nance went to work shortly after noon and returned home between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. Nance did not check on the children because Hedrick informed her that they were asleep. Nance went to her room and “watch[ed] TikTok” while Hedrick played video games. Transcript Volume II at 197. After about thirty to forty-five minutes, Nance left to go spend the night with the man she was seeing, leaving Hedrick home alone with the children. During the night, K.H. woke up and began crying. Hedrick changed his diaper and tried to help him fall back to sleep but was unsuccessful. At some point around 2:00 or 3:00 a.m., Hedrick became frustrated with K.H.’s crying and struck K.H. in the head. He then put K.H. back in his bed to go to sleep.

[4] When Hedrick woke up in the morning and went to check on the children, he discovered K.H.’s “lips were purple,” a whole side of his face was “blueish purple,” and he was “not breathing” or “responding.” State's Exhibit 8 at 30:53-31:32. Hedrick “called [Nance] hysterical ․ and told [her] that [K.H.] had passed away.” Transcript Volume II at 200. He then called 911 and told the operator that “my son's dead I think.” State's Exhibit 1B at 0:37-0:40. The operator tried to instruct Hedrick how to perform CPR, but Hedrick told him that he already knew CPR and had tried it but “nothing was working.” Id. at 2:34-2:45.

[5] Emergency personnel arrived on the scene within five minutes of the 911 call and found six-month-old K.H. “limp” and “cold to the touch.” Transcript Volume II at 37. The baby was not breathing, had no pulse, and his feet were blue with “some slight rigor in them, a little stiff.” Id. at 38. He also had a contusion on his forehead. CPR was initiated but the paramedics were unable to revive K.H. The child was pronounced dead at 10:56 a.m., twenty-six minutes after emergency personnel arrived.

[6] Hedrick and Nance were each separately interviewed by detectives at the Vanderburgh County Sheriff's office. During his three-hour interview, Hedrick initially denied having any idea what happened to cause K.H.’s death. Hedrick ultimately admitted that he hit K.H., but claimed that he may have done so while “blacked out” due to his anger at Nance. State's Exhibit 8 at 2:34:06. Hedrick stated that he held the infant for a period of time after striking him because he “felt bad,” admitting that he knew it was wrong to take the anger he felt about being abandoned by Nance “out on his son.” Id. at 2:34:49-2:41:29.

[7] The following day, Dr. James Jacobi performed an autopsy on K.H. He determined that K.H.’s cause of death was “[a]busive head trauma.” Transcript Volume II at 129. Dr. Jacobi based his determination in part on a radiologist report that he interpreted to reveal “two major injuries to the skull and spinal cord, one was the significant fracture involving the structures deep in the skull, inside the skull with some bit of hemorrhage or bleeding, and another finding was bleeding around the upper cervical spinal cord.” Id. at 130. Dr. Jacobi noted that this was a “very fatal type injury.” Id. at 132. He also observed contusions on the “back of the head,” “on the left side of the forehead,” and “on the left side of the scalp above the left ear” Id. Dr. Jacobi further noted that “there was a healing fracture of the right wrist” that was “at least several weeks” old and “did not factor into the cause of death.” Id. at 131.

[8] K.H.’s brother, J.H., was also examined by medical staff at Peyton Manning Children's Hospital. Medical staff found bruising on his back, shoulder blades, and face, as well as elevated liver enzymes consistent with “trauma or impact to the liver.” Id. at 188-189.

[9] Pediatric Radiologist Dr. Johanne Dillon reviewed “images of a deceased child by the name of K.H. on or about January 26, 2024.” Id. at 115. In her opinion, K.H. suffered injuries caused by “significant force” that was “something akin to a car accident.” Id. at 171. Dr. Dillon opined that the cause of K.H.’s injuries were nonaccidental.

[10] On January 29, 2024, the State charged Hedrick with murder, neglect of a dependent resulting in death as a level 1 felony, battery as a level 6 felony, and two counts of neglect of a dependent as level 6 felonies. While incarcerated and awaiting trial, Hedrick made several phone calls to his parents. During one call, he told his parents that his statement to police admitting that he hit K.H. was the truth. In another call he referred to his children as “motherf-----s.” State's Exhibit 13 at 0:00-0:21.

[11] A jury trial began on January 27, 2025. At the outset, the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss the battery charge and one of the level 6 felony neglect of a dependent charges. The jury found Hedrick guilty of the three remaining counts and the court entered judgment of conviction on each of those counts. During the sentencing hearing on February 21, 2025, the court merged the level 1 felony neglect of a dependent count with the murder count due to double jeopardy concerns. The court sentenced Hedrick to an aggregate executed sentence of sixty years in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Discussion

[12] Hedrick challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his murder conviction. When reviewing claims of insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995), reh'g denied. We look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id. The conviction will be affirmed if there exists evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[13] To support Hedrick's conviction for murder, the State was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally killed K.H. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1. A person engages in conduct “intentionally” if, “when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(a). A person engages in conduct “knowingly” if, “when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b). “Knowledge and intent are both mental states and, absent an admission by the defendant, the trier of fact must resort to the reasonable inferences from both the direct and circumstantial evidence to determine whether the defendant has the requisite knowledge or intent to commit the offense in question.” Stokes v. State, 922 N.E.2d 758, 764 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence and may be inferred from a defendant's conduct and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically and reasonably points).

[14] Hedrick argues that the State “failed to present any evidence that [he] was aware of a high probability that K.H. would die from” the blows he admittedly inflicted upon the baby. Appellant's Brief at 10. We disagree. The evidence demonstrated that K.H. sustained fatal injuries to his head that were delivered by a “significant” amount of force. Transcript Volume II at 171. K.H. had bruising on his face, scalp, and back of his head, and he had severe internal bleeding around his head and spine. It was also observed that K.H. had a healing wrist fracture that was the type of injury that most certainly resulted “from nonaccidental trauma.” Id. at 159. Moreover, K.H.’s brother was also found to have suffered multiple instances of nonaccidental trauma, which indicates that Hedrick's strike to K.H.’s head on the night in question was neither isolated nor accidental. Based upon the evidence presented, a reasonable jury could infer that an adult male could not strike a small infant in such a manner without understanding that there was a high probability that it would kill him.

[15] Despite Hedrick's suggestions to the contrary, it was the jury's prerogative to discredit his self-serving claims to detectives that he was “blacked out” and somehow unaware of what he was doing when he hit K.H. Indeed, Hedrick admitted that he held K.H. in his arms after he struck him because he “felt bad” and knew that he had done something terribly wrong. State's Exhibit 8 at 2:34:49-2:41:29. The State presented sufficient evidence of probative value to support the jury's finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Hedrick knowingly killed K.H.

[16] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Hedrick's murder conviction. We note that the record reveals that the court entered judgment of conviction on all three counts upon which the jury rendered a guilty verdict, and the State concedes that although the trial court merged the level 1 felony neglect of a dependent count with the murder count at sentencing due to double jeopardy concerns, the court did not vacate the level 1 felony conviction. This Court has observed:

If a trial court does not formally enter a judgment of conviction on a jury verdict of guilty, then there is no requirement that the trial court vacate the ‘conviction,’ and merger is appropriate. However, if the trial court does enter judgment of conviction on a jury's guilty verdict, then simply merging the offenses is insufficient and vacation of the offense is required.

Kovats v. State, 982 N.E.2d 409, 414-415 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Accordingly, remand is appropriate for the limited purpose of vacating Hedrick's conviction for neglect of a dependent as a level 1 felony.¹

[17] Affirmed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This will not impact Hedrick's sentence as the trial court did not impose any sentence for neglect of a dependent as a level 1 felony.

Brown, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.