Jermaine C. Whitsett, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jermaine C. Whitsett appeals his convictions for Level 5 felony battery with a deadly weapon and Level 6 felony criminal recklessness for shooting his girlfriend at the time, Michelle Clark, in the thigh. Shortly after the shooting, Michelle told several people, including a police officer, a detective, and a nurse practitioner, that Whitsett had shot her. At the jury trial, these statements were admitted into evidence with no objection from Whitsett. Michelle, however, testified that Whitsett didn't shoot her, that she accidentally shot herself, and that she didn't remember telling people that Whitsett had shot her.

[2] Whitsett argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, claiming that Michelle's statements to the police officer, the detective, and the nurse practitioner were “used primarily by the State for impeachment purposes.” Appellant's Br. p. 12. The State responds that these statements were admitted as substantive evidence under Indiana Evidence Rule 803 as excited utterances and statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment. See Tr. Vol. 2 pp. 207-08 (officer testifying that Michelle was “upset,” “crying,” and “still under the stress of” the shooting), 233 (detective testifying that Michelle was “very, very upset” and “crying”); 228 (nurse practitioner testifying that while she was assessing and treating Michelle, she said her boyfriend shot her). And since there was no objection from Whitsett, the jury was not instructed that it could only consider these statements for impeachment purposes. Because these statements were admitted as substantive evidence and not simply to impeach Michelle, Whitsett's insufficiency argument is a blatant request for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015). The jury heard both of Michelle's versions and chose to believe the statements she made shortly after being shot. We will not second-guess its determination.

[3] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Judges Mathias and Pyle concur. Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.