STEPHENS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Nashawn Stephens and Kyndall Dickerson planned to lure Tychius Derrickson to Kyndall's apartment in order to rob him. Once Derrickson arrived, Kyndall distracted him, allowing Stephens to viciously beat Derrickson before dragging him outside and shooting him three times in the face. Stephens was charged with and convicted of murder; he was also alleged and found to have used a firearm in committing the offense. The trial court sentenced Stephens to 75 years of incarceration. Stephens now appeals, raising one issue for our review: Whether the State presented sufficient evidence at trial to support Stephens's conviction for murder.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In 2022, Kyndall lived at the Pin Oak apartment complex (“Pin Oak”) in Mishawaka, Indiana, and she was involved with three men: Stephens, Derrickson, and Stephens's incarcerated friend Daquan Hankins. On June 17, when Stephens was at Kyndall's apartment, Stephens saw a text message sent from Derrickson to Kyndall. Stephens took Kyndall's phone and started reviewing more texts. Stephens saw a message from Derrickson “stating that he was going to kill” Hankins. Tr. Vol. III at 144. Derrickson's threat to harm Hankins, along with the texts that suggested Derrickson and Kyndall were in a relationship, upset Stephens. Stephens asked Kyndall if she was “having relationships” with Derrickson. Id. at 140. Kyndall replied that she was. Stephens then called Derrickson to ask Derrickson about his relationship with Kyndall. Derrickson denied having a relationship with Kyndall and made disparaging comments about her body, which Kyndall overheard and found offensive. With Kyndall and Stephens both upset now, they hatched a plan to lure Derrickson to the apartment so they could take Derrickson's gun. After Stephens left, Kyndall talked with Derrickson on the phone five times between 9:59 p.m. and 10:48 p.m. After each of these calls with Derrickson ended, Kyndall immediately called Stephens.

[4] When Stephens left Kyndall's apartment around 9:00 p.m., he was picked up by Dennyla Norman in her silver Pontiac. Norman and Stephens drove to pick up Norman's cousin, Cyrus Grywczynski, from work at approximately 10:00 p.m., then returned to Pin Oak. Stephens was wearing a red, white, and blue hoodie, and Norman observed that Stephens had a gun in his pocket. After some time, Stephens exited the car, telling Norman and Grywczynski that “he'd be right back.” Tr. Vol. III at 46. As Stephens got out, he told someone on the phone to “be naked.” Id.

[5] Stephens walked up to Kyndall's apartment, and Kyndall interrupted her sexual encounter with Derrickson to let Stephens inside the apartment. Stephens waited at the front door while Kyndall resumed her sexual encounter with Derrickson. Approximately a minute later, Stephens entered the bedroom, pointed a gun at Derrickson's face, and demanded to know where Derrickson's gun was located. When Derrickson denied having a gun, Stephens struck Derrickson in the face with his gun. Stephens dragged Derrickson toward the front door and “hit [Derrickson] again and again and again, again,” Tr. Vol. III at 153, until Kyndall heard “a real loud crack,” id. at 154. An upstairs neighbor, Abigail Titus, could hear the beating from her apartment and said “it sounded like when you take a pipe and you beat it against a watermelon. ․ It was a very wet sound.” Tr. Vol. II at 63.

[6] Stephens continued dragging Derrickson out of the apartment and down the hall while Kyndall shut and locked her front door. Kyndall heard gunshots and looked out her bedroom window where she saw Stephens “running and [Derrickson's] body dropping.” Tr. Vol. III at 155. Norman and Grywczynski heard gunshots while Stephens was gone from the car, and Stephens returned to Norman's car with bloody hands moments after they heard the shots. Grywczynski saw Stephens's gun when he returned to the car. A neighbor was sitting in the parking lot and saw a man in a red and white jacket run past her truck moments after hearing gunshots and enter a silver car, which “left very fast with no lights on” once he was inside of it. Tr. Vol II at 221.

[7] Titus ran outside after hearing gunshots and began administering CPR to Derrickson, who later died on scene from three gunshot wounds to the face. During the ensuing investigation, law enforcement officers discovered that shortly after the shooting, Stephens had been searching Facebook for information related to Derrickson and the investigation. For instance, at 2:10 a.m., Stephens searched for “huncho daman,” Tr. Vol. V at 190, the “Facebook moniker” used by Derrickson, Tr. Vol. IV at 92. At 2:11 a.m., Stephens searched for “south bend police scanner.” Tr. Vol. V at 190; see also Tr. Vol. IV at 92.

[8] After Stephens was arrested, law enforcement officers interviewed him. During the interview, Stephens admitted to being at Pin Oak at the time of the murder; owning a red, white, and blue hoodie; and having access to “hella guns,” State's Ex. 401 at 44:27–44:28. The State charged Stephens with murder ¹ and alleged that he used a firearm in committing the offense ² . A jury found Stephens guilty as charged, and the trial court found that Stephens had used a firearm in committing the offense. The trial court sentenced Stephens to a total of 75 years of incarceration. This appeal ensued.³

Discussion and Decision

The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support Stephen's Murder Conviction

[9] Stephens argues that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to support his murder conviction.⁴ Our standard of review for such a claim is as follows:

“A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if ‘there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015)). This Court reviews only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom, and will reverse only where it is shown that “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Teising [v. State], 226 N.E.3d [780,] 783 [(Ind. 2024)].

Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1090–91 (Ind. 2025). We do not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. Id. at 1090 (quoting Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783).

[10] Stephens argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence establishing that he was “the individual who fired the shots that killed [ ] Derrickson,” Appellant's Br. at 11, because no witnesses “saw the actual shooting,” id. at 12; Stephens did not confess; and the murder weapon was not recovered. The State presented no direct evidence identifying Stephens as the shooter. Nobody testified that they saw Stephens shoot Derrickson; rather, the State built its case on circumstantial evidence.

In a circumstantial case, no single piece of evidence in isolation—no “smoking gun”—is offered to persuade the jury to convict. Yet a jury may be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, by looking at “a web of facts in which no single strand may be dispositive.” Kriner v. State, 699 N.E.2d 659, 664 (Ind. 1998). Indeed, the “evidence in the aggregate may point to guilt where individual elements of the State's case might not.” Id. ․ [W]hen presented with a sufficiency challenge[,] we look at the “whole picture” without taking a “divide-and-conquer approach” to individual pieces of evidence. See McGrath v. State, 95 N.E.3d 522, 529 (Ind. 2018) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Young v. State, 198 N.E.3d 1172, 1176–77 (Ind. 2022).

[11] Here, the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict show that Stephens and Kyndall coordinated to rob Derrickson of his firearm. In furtherance of that plan, Kyndall invited Derrickson to her apartment and distracted him with sex while Stephens entered the bedroom to attack Derrickson. Stephens attacked Derrickson so violently that the upstairs neighbor could hear the beating and described the sound as that of a pipe striking a watermelon. Multiple witnesses testified that Stephens had a gun that night, Stephens admitted to being at Pin Oak when the shots were fired, and Stephens had blood on his hands when he returned to Norman's silver car moments after the shots were fired. Stephens also began searching for news on Derrickson and the investigation mere hours after the murder occurred. And, perhaps most significantly, Kyndall testified that she saw “[Stephens] running and [Derrickson's] body dropping.” Tr. Vol. III at 155. By finding Stephens guilty as charged, the jury clearly believed the web of evidence demonstrating Stephens was the shooter. In light of the compelling and substantial evidence against Stephens, we cannot second guess that judgment, see Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1090 (quoting Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783). The State presented sufficient evidence to support Stephens's conviction for murder.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1).

2.   I.C. § 35-50-2-11(b)(1).

3.   Stephens fails to support with citations to the record every statement of fact in his Statement of the Case, as required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(6)(a). We remind counsel that the purpose of our appellate rules—especially Appellate Rule 46 governing the content of briefs—“is to aid and expedite review and to relieve the appellate court of the burden of searching the record and briefing the case.” Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023) (emphasis added) (quoting Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 364 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021)).

4.   Stephens does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the firearm enhancement.

Felix, Judge.

Brown, J., and Scheele, J., concur.