CURTIS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Following a jury trial, Ceaser Curtis was convicted of murder, a felony. Curtis appeals and claims that the trial court committed fundamental error by admitting evidence in violation of Evidence Rule 404(b). We disagree and affirm.

Issue

[2] Curtis presents one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court committed fundamental error by admitting evidence in violation of Evidence Rule 404(b).

Facts

[3] After dating for nine years, Curtis and Marcia (Jones) Curtis (“Marcia”) married in 2008. Their relationship was “rocky and very toxic,” and involved “a lot of arguing, controlling behavior ․ [s]creaming [and] fighting.” Tr. Vol. II p. 171. According to Curtis’ daughter, “the only thing [Curtis] could think about was Marcia and what she was doing, who she was talking to, [and] where she was.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 194.

[4] In the summer of 2022, Marcia moved out of the marital home in Muncie and moved in with a coworker in Winchester. Marcia moved because she planned to file for divorce and feared what Curtis might do if he found out about her plan. Marcia was so concerned about Curtis’ reaction that she did not give her new address to her two adult daughters from a prior relationship, Brittany and Ashley Ratcliff.

[5] On the evening of November 25, 2022, Curtis entered the residential facility for the disabled where Marcia worked, pointed a small, gray pistol at Marcia, and threatened to kill her. Terrified and fearing for her safety, Marcia called 911, and Curtis was arrested. Four days later, Marcia sought and obtained a protection order against Curtis. And on December 1, 2022, Marcia filed for divorce.

[6] The protection order did not deter Curtis. Using money he borrowed from his daughter, Curtis bought a tracking device and placed it on Marcia's car. He was subsequently able to discover Marcia's new address. Around this time, Curtis asked his daughter's friend to beat Marcia with a lead pipe. Curtis also drove around with his friend, Brad Luttrell, oftentimes to Marcia's place of work.

[7] On March 1, 2023, Marcia discovered that the driver's side rear window of her car had been broken by a projectile. She reported the incident to the police and told the responding officers that she suspected Curtis was the culprit. The driver's side front window was broken in a similar manner on March 10, 2023. The responding officers believed the damage had been caused by a BB gun. Marcia again named Curtis as the suspect and told the officers that she and Curtis were getting divorced.

[8] On March 27, 2023, the day before the final dissolution decree was entered, Marcia found that her car and the corner of her home were on fire, as was the grass on the ground between the car and home. Marcia called 911, and a firefighter, who lived three houses from Marcia, responded quickly. This firefighter was unable to extinguish the blaze on his own, and he noticed the smell of gasoline as he fought the fire. Other firefighters arrived and extinguished the fire. A State Fire Marshall investigator later determined that a garden sprayer had been used to spray gasoline in the area of the fire as an accelerant. Marcia told the firefighters that she suspected Curtis had started the fire and told them that Curtis drove a Chrysler 300. The firefighter who lived near Marcia checked the video from his home security camera and noticed that a Chrysler 300 had driven past his home just minutes before he was dispatched to the fire.

[9] On March 29, 2023, the day after the dissolution decree was entered, law enforcement officers were dispatched to Marcia's home to investigate an intimidation complaint. The first officer to respond was standing outside Marcia's home speaking with her when he observed a Chrysler 300 drive by. Another officer quickly located the Chrysler just a block away from Marcia's home and followed the car as it drove to Delaware County. A check of the license plate of the Chrysler revealed that it was registered to Curtis.

[10] Marcia called the police again on April 6, 2023, to report another broken window and dents with chipped paint on her car, both consistent with someone shooting her car with a BB gun. When law enforcement officers arrived to investigate, Marcia showed them dozens of text messages that Curtis had sent her beginning at 2:44 a.m. that morning. Marcia informed the officers of the protection order and stated that she feared Curtis would try to harm her. Curtis later confided to his friend, Tim Mills, that he had used a small, gray BB pistol, which Curtis borrowed from his other friend Luttrell, to shoot Marcia's car.

[11] In the summer of 2023, Marcia moved back to Muncie and began to live in a camper parked on the same lot as Curtis’ mobile home. Marcia hoped that this would “cause everything to calm down.” Tr. Vol. II p. 177. When Marcia's car stopped working, she began to rely on Curtis and her father to transport her to and from her second job in Portland, Indiana. Typically, Marcia's father would take her to work, and Curtis would bring her home. When Curtis’ own car stopped working, he borrowed Mills’ pickup truck, and he and Mills would drive to Portland to pick Marcia up from work; they would typically leave Muncie at 9:00 p.m., pick up Marcia in Portland at 10:00 p.m., and return home to Muncie at 11:00 p.m.

[12] In August 2023, Curtis sent scores of text messages to Marcia in which he expressed his love for her and his anger toward her for contacting prison inmates. Around that same time, Curtis used his phone to log in to a website that allows users to send calls or messages to prison inmates. Curtis used the site's password-recovery feature to reset Marcia's password and took screenshots of messages Marcia had sent to several inmates.¹

[13] On September 1, 2023, Curtis texted or called Marcia over 100 times. Curtis also sent Marcia's daughter, Ashley, screenshots of the messages between Marcia and the prison inmates. That evening, Curtis told Mills that they would not be driving to pick Marcia up from work because Curtis and Marcia were arguing. Instead, Curtis borrowed Mills’ truck, dropped Mills off at Luttrell's house, and told Mills to hang out there until Curtis and Marcia returned.

[14] At 10:08 p.m. that night, Curtis stopped at a gas station approximately one mile from Marcia's place of work. Around three minutes later, he drove away. At 10:53 p.m., Curtis stopped at another gas station in Muncie located about one mile from his home and purchased gas using Marcia's debit card. Meanwhile, Mills was worried when Curtis did not return at 11:00 p.m. to pick him up from Luttrell's home. Mills and Luttrell tried to call Curtis several times, but Curtis did not answer. This was unusual, because Curtis typically had his phone on him.

[15] Finally, at 12:45 a.m., Curtis arrived at Luttrell's home. When Mills came to the truck, Marcia was not in the vehicle. Mills drove Curtis home. When they arrived, Curtis claimed that he had seen the shadow of a person inside Marcia's camper and asked if Mills had seen it too. But Mills did not see the shadow. Curtis exited the truck and went straight to his home, which was unusual because he normally stopped at Marcia's camper to talk to her before going home.

[16] At 11:23 a.m., Curtis used his phone to send a Facebook message to himself from Marcia's Facebook account. The message read, “Will you feed the cat? I will be gone for my days off. Need time to think. I love you.” Ex. Vol. II, State's Ex. 230. Later that day, Curtis went to Luttrell's home and, without being asked, said that he had dropped Marcia off at the intersection of State Road 32 and Bennett Street the night before. The next day, September 3, 2023, Curtis again used Marcia's Facebook account to send two other messages to himself. The first stated, “I wanted to let you know I am at a friend's house I love you.” Id. The second stated, “Don't forget to feed [the cat].” Id. Curtis also used Marcia's Facebook account to place an audio call to himself that evening.

[17] Mills did not see Marcia that Labor Day weekend and asked Curtis where Marcia was. Curtis nonchalantly responded that Marcia “must be with somebody else.” Tr. Vol. III p. 117. On Tuesday, September 5, 2023, Marcia's father tried to call her to see if she needed a ride to work, but Marcia did not respond. Marcia's daughter Ashley also tried to contact Marcia but with no success. Ashley contacted Curtis to tell him that they could not contact Marcia, and Curtis falsely told her that he had filed a missing-persons report that day because he had not seen Marcia since the previous Friday. Ashley thought this odd because she had communicated with Curtis over the weekend and he had never mentioned that Marcia was missing.

[18] Ashley and her sister Brittany then called to see if the police had already received a report that Marcia was missing, but no such report had been filed. The next day, Ashley and Brittany made a missing-persons report. Later that day, Ashley again spoke with Curtis, who now claimed that he had made sure that Marcia made it home safely on the night he picked her up. He later stated, however, that he had dropped Marcia off on the side of the road leading to her home. Curtis then changed his story and told Ashley that Marcia walked home from the gas station. He also told Ashley that he saw a shadow in Marcia's camper that he thought was Marcia.

[19] Law enforcement officers interviewed Curtis on September 12, 2023, in connection with Marcia's disappearance. During the interview, Curtis falsely stated that he had not gone through Marcia's phone. He also stated that he picked Marcia up from work on September 1, drove to the gas station, then dropped Marcia off at the intersection of State Road 32 and Butterfield Road in Muncie. Curtis claimed he saw Marcia's shadow in her camper later that night. Curtis told the officers that, after stopping at the gas station, he drove around to look for his son. The officers viewed video from cameras on the roads Curtis claimed to have traveled, but the vehicle he allegedly drove that night was not seen on those roads.

[20] Search parties were formed to search for Marcia, but Curtis did not want to participate, which caused Luttrell to suspect that Curtis had something to do with Marcia's disappearance. When Luttrell confronted Curtis about his suspicions, Curtis admitted that he had killed Marcia after he had picked her up from work on the night of September 1. Curtis told Luttrell that he and Marcia were arguing as they drove; he struck Marcia; and then he threw her phone out of the window. Using the BB gun, Curtis ordered Marcia out of the vehicle and struck her on the head with a baseball bat. As Curtis confessed, Luttrell observed that the BB gun he had previously loaned to Curtis was on the dining room table. On September 13, after Curtis’ confession, Luttrell went to the police and reported his conversation with Curtis.

[21] Law enforcement officers drove Luttrell around the areas that he and Curtis often travelled when “joy riding,” Tr. Vol. IV p. 2, which included an area near a local reservoir. On September 14, officers found Marcia's body under an abandoned trailer situated near a soybean field near the reservoir—one of the areas Luttrell took the officers. An autopsy revealed that Marcia had four fractures on the front, back, left, and right sides of her skull that were caused by blunt force trauma.

[22] Law enforcement officers searched the truck Curtis had driven on the night of September 1 and found a tote bag containing a metal pipe that had hair stuck to it. Although the hair appeared to be human, the hair did not have any roots that would permit DNA testing. A search of the trunk of Curtis’ car revealed two baseball bats.

[23] On September 20, 2023, the State charged Curtis with Marcia's murder and alleged that he was an habitual offender. That November, after the crops were harvested, a hunter found a baseball bat in the soybean field fifty-to-seventy yards from where Marcia's body was found. This bat was subsequently identified as a bat owned by Curtis’ son. The following spring, Marcia's purse and wallet were found roughly one mile from where her body was located. Subsequent DNA testing revealed that Curtis’ DNA was on the garden sprayer used to spray gasoline on Marcia's vehicle and house in March 2023, and a mixture of Curtis’, Luttrell's, and Marcia's DNA was found on the BB gun.

[24] On May 17, 2024, the State filed a notice of intent to introduce evidence under Evidence Rule 404(b), in which the State noted its intent to introduce evidence of the following prior interactions between Curtis and Marcia: (1) the incident in which Curtis pointed a gun at Marcia at her workplace; (2) the existence of the protection order and Curtis’ violation thereof by sending Marcia numerous text messages; (3) the incident in which Marcia's car and home were set on fire; (4) the divorce proceedings; and (5) Curtis’ attempt to get his daughter's boyfriend to attack Marcia with a pipe. The State argued that it would not use this evidence to prove Curtis’ character and his action in conformity therewith, but to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, and/or knowledge. At a hearing on the State's notice, Curtis argued that such evidence should not be admissible. The trial court entered a preliminary ruling that the State could introduce this evidence.

[25] Curtis’ jury trial commenced on December 2, 2024. Immediately prior to trial, Curtis objected to the introduction of any Rule 404(b) evidence. The trial court adhered to its earlier ruling but asked Curtis, “Do you want me to show it as a continuing objection?” Tr. Vol. II p. 141. Curtis’ counsel responded in the affirmative. At trial, however, when the State proffered most of its Rule 404(b) evidence, Curtis’ counsel affirmatively stated that he had “no objection.”² With regard to other evidence, Curtis objected on grounds other than Evidence Rule 404(b), see Tr. Vol. II p. 174 (objecting on hearsay grounds to evidence of the incident at Marcia's workplace); Tr. Vol. III pp. 6-7 (objecting on hearsay grounds to testimony that a vehicle matching Curtis’ was seen near Marcia's house shortly before the fire), or he failed to object at all. See Tr. Vol. III p. 58-63 (no objection to testimony that Curtis’ car was seen near Marcia's home). The jury found Curtis guilty as charged, and he admitted to being an habitual offender. The trial court sentenced Curtis to sixty years for the murder conviction and imposed an habitual offender enhancement of eighteen years. Curtis now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[26] Curtis claims that the trial court committed fundamental error by admitting evidence regarding: (1) the incident in which he pointed a gun at Marcia at her workplace; (2) the damage to Marcia's car caused by Curtis shooting it with a BB gun; (3) the fire at Marcia's home and a car matching his being seen in the area shortly before the fire; and (4) the incident in which the police saw Curtis’ car drive past Marcia's house when responding to a report of harassment.

A. Evidence Rule 404(b)

[27] Curtis claims that the evidence listed above was inadmissible under Evidence Rule 404(b). This rule provides that “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Evid. R. 404(b)(1). Such evidence may be admitted, however, “for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Evid. R. 404(b)(2).

[28] “Evidence Rule 404(b) is designed to prevent the jury from making the ‘forbidden inference’ that prior wrongful conduct suggests present guilt.” Hardiman v. State, 222 N.E.3d 1049, 1055-56 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Halliburton, 1 N.E.3d 670, 681 (Ind. 2013)), trans. denied. “[T]he purpose behind Evidence Rule 404(b) is to ‘prevent[ ] the State from punishing people for their character, and evidence of extrinsic offenses poses the danger that the jury will convict the defendant because ․ he has a tendency to commit other crimes.’ ” Id. (quoting Bassett v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1050, 1053 (Ind. 2003)). Thus, “ ‘[t]he effect of Rule 404(b) is that evidence is excluded only when it is introduced to prove the forbidden inference of demonstrating the defendant's propensity to commit the charged crime.’ ” Id. (quoting Laird v. State, 103 N.E.3d 1171, 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018)).

[29] If evidence is introduced for another purpose—such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident—then the trial court:

First ․ must determine that the evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is relevant to a matter at issue other than the defendant's propensity to commit the charged act. Second, the court must determine that the proponent has sufficient proof that the person who allegedly committed the act did, in fact, commit the act. And third, the court must balance the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect pursuant to Rule 403.

D.R.C. v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 223 (Ind. 2009) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

B. Standard of Review—Waiver and Fundamental Error

[30] We generally review challenges to the admission of evidence for an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Combs v. State, 168 N.E.3d 985, 990 (Ind. 2021). Although Curtis made a continuing pre-trial objection to the evidence the State sought to admit under Evidence Rule 404(b), when the evidence was admitted at trial, he either: (1) affirmatively stated that he had no objection to the evidence; (2) did not object at all, or (3) he objected on grounds other than Evidence Rule 404(b). Thus, his claim of evidentiary error is waived. See Shoda v. State, 132 N.E.3d 454, 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (pre-trial motions do not preserve evidentiary error); Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010) (failure to lodge a contemporaneous objection at the time evidence is introduced at trial results in waiver on appeal); Benjamin v. State, 233 N.E.3d 506, 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (a party may not object on one ground at trial and raise a different ground on appeal).³

[31] “The rule requiring a contemporaneous objection ‘is no mere procedural technicality.’ ” Viverett v. State, 215 N.E.3d 352, 355 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Shoda v. State, 132 N.E.3d 454, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)), trans. denied. “The requirement that evidentiary objections be made timely is for the purpose of permitting a trial court to take appropriate preventative or corrective action during trial.” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 119 (Ind. 2015) (citing Godby v. State, 736 N.E.2d 252, 255 (Ind. 2000)). By requiring a contemporaneous objection, we “ ‘promote a fair trial by precluding a party from sitting idly by and appearing to assent to an offer of evidence or ruling by the court only to cry foul when the outcome goes against him.’ ” Hollingsworth v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1096, 1099 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Purifoy v. State, 821 N.E.2d 409, 412 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)), trans. denied. Without an objection, our review is hampered because the State cannot respond, and the trial court cannot explain the basis for its ruling.

[32] To avoid waiver, Curtis argues that the admission of this evidence in violation of Evidence Rule 404(b) amounted to fundamental error. “The fundamental error doctrine is an exception to the general rule that the failure to object at trial constitutes procedural default precluding consideration of the issue on appeal.” Haliburton, 1 N.E.3d at 678 (citing Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 755 (Ind. 2002)). To amount to fundamental error, the alleged error must “ ‘either make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process.’ ” Id. (quoting Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010)). Thus, the fundamental error exception is “ ‘extremely narrow.’ ” Id. (quoting Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind. 2006)).

C. The admission of evidence of Curtis’ prior actions toward Marcia did not constitute fundamental error.

1. The incident at Marcia's workplace.

[33] We first address the admissibility of Ashely's testimony about the incident in which Curtis pointed a gun at Marcia at her workplace. The State argues that evidence of this incident was not admitted to show Curtis’ criminal propensity; instead, it was admitted to show Curtis’ motive to murder Marcia. “Evidence of motive is always relevant in the proof of a crime, and a defendant's prior actions with respect to the victim are also usually admissible to show the relationship between the two.” Ortiz v. State, 716 N.E.2d 345, 350 (Ind. 1999). Indeed, “ ‘[h]ostility is a paradigmatic motive for committing a crime.’ ” Carr v. State, 255 N.E.3d 519, 527 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (quoting Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215, 222 (Ind. 1997)), trans. denied.

[34] Accordingly, the admission of evidence about the incident at Marcia's workplace was properly admitted and did not constitute fundamental error. See Iqbal v. State, 805 N.E.2d 401, 408 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (evidence of prior incident where defendant pointed a gun at victim's head and threatened to kill her was admissible to show defendant's motive in subsequent murder trial), trans. denied.

2. Damage to Martha's car.

[35] Curtis also claims that Ashely's testimony regarding the BB gun damage to Marcia's car was inadmissible under Evidence Rule 404(b). Curtis did not object to the police officer's testimony regarding the damage to the car, and he affirmatively stated that he had “no objection” to the admission of the photographs depicting the damage to the car and the report finding Curtis’ DNA on the BB gun. Tr. Vol. II p. 237; Tr. Vol. III p. 72; Tr. IV p. 147. Accordingly, his claim of evidentiary error is not only waived, but he cannot even claim fundamental error. See Halliburton, 1 N.E.3d at 679 (a defendant cannot state at trial that he has no objection to evidence and then claim on appeal that the admission of such evidence was fundamental error).

3. Chrysler 300 seen near Marcia's home before the fire.

[36] Curtis also claims that it was fundamental error to admit testimony that a car matching the make and model of his car—a Chrysler 300—was seen driving near Marcia's home shortly before the firefighters arrived to combat the fire at Marcia's home. First, this was not evidence of a prior bad act. At most, the testimony implied that Curtis was at the scene at the time of the fire. Evidence which creates a mere inference of prior misconduct is not prohibited by Evidence Rule 404(b). Dixson v. State, 865 N.E.2d 704, 712 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Haak v. State, 695 N.E.2d 944, 947 (Ind. 1998)), trans. denied.⁴

4. Curtis’ car driving near Marcia's house

[37] Lastly, Curtis claims that it was fundamental error to admit testimony by the responding police officer that Curtis’ Chrysler 300 was seen one block away from Marcia's home on March 29, 2023. Curtis did not object to this evidence and can only claim fundamental error. This evidence does not directly implicate Curtis in any bad act, and was therefore, not prohibited by Evidence Rule 404(b). Dixson, 865 N.E.2d at 712 (citing Haak, 695 N.E.2d at 947).⁵ Thus, the admission of this evidence did not constitute fundamental error.

Conclusion

[38] Curtis failed to preserve his claims of error with regard to the evidence he now challenges on appeal. And although Curtis claims fundamental error in the admission of this evidence, it was admissible to show his motive and, therefore, did not constitute fundamental error. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[39] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Marcia used to work at a prison, and she and Curtis often argued over her messaging inmates at the prison.

2.   See Tr. Vol. II pp. 229-230 (protection order); id. at 231 (dissolution petition); id. at 237 (photos of damage to Marcia's car); Tr. Vol. III p. 17 (photos of the damage caused by the fire); id. at 55 (dissolution decree); id. at 72 (photos of damage to Marcia's car); id. at 75 (photos of text messages from Curtis to Marcia); Tr. Vol. IV p. 62 (BB pistol); id. at 215, 219-21 (Facebook logs); id. at 223 (screenshots from Curtis’ phone); id. at 226 (text messages between Curtis and Marcia).

3.   We reiterate what we said in Hostetler v. State, 184 N.E.3d 1240, 1246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022):We take this opportunity to echo and supplement the Hayworth [v. State, 904 N.E.2d 684, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)] Court's clarification regarding the “proper procedure” for a defendant who seeks to rely upon a continuing objection, which is now set forth under Evidence Rule 103(b). Upon a defendant's “timely” and “sufficiently specific objection to a particular class of evidence” at trial, the defendant's request for a continuing objection should ideally specify that it is pursuant to Evidence Rule 103(b). See Hayworth, 904 N.E.2d at 686; Evid. R. 103(a),(b). The trial court may then “rule[ ] definitively on the record at trial” on the defendant's continuing objection request. See Evid. R. 103(b). Thereafter, “during the subsequent admission of that class of evidence” to which the defendant sought the continuing objection under Evidence Rule 103(b), the “proper procedure” is for the defendant to “remain silent[.]” Hayworth, 904 N.E.2d at 686, 694. If the defendant were to make a statement to the admission of the evidence, especially where a trial court asks if the defendant has any objection, the recommended procedure would be for the defendant to simply state that he is relying upon his continuing objection under Evidence Rule 103(b).

4.   Even if this evidence did directly implicate Curtis in the fire, the State did not argue that it established Curtis’ criminal propensity; instead, the State argued that it showed Curtis's desire for revenge against Marcia, i.e., his motive. See Tr. Vol. V p. 24; Iqbal, 805 N.E.2d at 408. Thus, this evidence was admissible under Evidence Rule 404(b) and did not constitute fundamental error.

5.   And again, even if it did directly implicate Curtis in a bad act, it was admissible to show his motive.

Tavitas, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Felix, J., concur.