Christian Trinidad Gonzalez, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Christian Trinidad Gonzalez appeals his conviction for murder following a jury trial. Gonzalez presents one issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In June 2024, then sixteen-year-old Gonzalez, a runaway, was living with his adult girlfriend, Destiny Rhoades, and Rhoades’ four-year-old daughter, O.A. Also living in the townhouse with them were sisters Carley and Cydney Hooper, and the Hoopers’ sister Megan Fuchs was visiting from out of town. On June 13, Cydney came home from work in the afternoon and found O.A. and Gonzalez downstairs, while Carley and Megan were asleep upstairs. Cydney noticed that O.A. “looked really pale” and had “pink marks around her neck, and a bruise on her cheek.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 238. O.A. told Cydney that the cats had caused the bruise. And Gonzalez told Cydney that O.A. had “woke[n] up crying” and told him that the “cats attacked her.” Id. at 239.

[4] Cydney, Gonzalez, and O.A. then went outside, and Cydney noticed that O.A. appeared to be “spacing [out] a little bit” like she was having “seizures.” Id. at 239-40. Cydney also saw what looked like a human bite mark on O.A.’s arm. Cydney observed that the bite mark was “pretty big” and that O.A. could not have caused the mark herself. Id. at 241. Cydney drove O.A. to McDonald's, where Rhoades was working. Rhoades told Cydney that she did not think that Gonzalez would have bitten O.A. But O.A. finally told Rhoades that Gonzalez had bitten her. Rhoades, Cydney, and O.A. then went home to talk to Gonzalez.

[5] Back at the townhouse, Rhoades “confronted [Gonzalez] about the marks on” O.A. Id. at 242. He continued to deny having caused any of the marks on O.A. Rhoades then told Gonzalez that there were cameras in the townhouse so that they could find out what had really happened. At that point, Gonzalez admitted that he had bitten O.A.¹

[6] For the rest of the day, Cydney continued to notice that O.A. did not seem like herself. Rhoades and Megan took O.A. to a park. O.A. was “playing a little bit, but she wasn't playing much.” Tr. Vol. 3, p. 38. Later that night, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Megan observed that O.A. was playing on her tablet and seemed “more active” than she had been earlier in the day. Id. at 42.

[7] The next morning, at approximately 8:40 a.m., Carley came home after working an overnight shift. Rhoades was already at work that morning. Carley found O.A. lying on a mattress in the living room, and Gonzalez was next to her. Carley saw that O.A.’s eyes were open, but her face was purple and her lips were blue. Gonzalez told Carley that O.A. was sleeping, but Carley went upstairs to wake up Cydney and Megan, and Carley called 9-1-1. Carley attempted to revive O.A. with chest compressions. Carley observed that Gonzalez was “eerily calm,” and he “didn't freak out until [Carley] did.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 99.

[8] Evansville Police Department Officer Greg Hosterman arrived shortly after the 9-1-1 call and found O.A. “unresponsive” on the mattress. Id. at 113. Officer Hosterman could not find O.A.’s pulse, and he observed bruising on her head, neck, arms, and legs. O.A. was transported to a nearby hospital. A CT scan of her brain showed swelling consistent with “some sort of trauma” to the brain that had caused a lack of oxygen and blood flow to the brain. Id. at 212-13.

[9] Dr. Michael Hodges, an ophthalmologist, examined O.A.’s eyes and found that they were dilated, which “usually [indicates] damage to the brain.” Id. at 221. Upon examination, he found “pretty dramatic” damage to her eyes in the form of a “significant preretinal hemorrhage” blocking the optic nerve in one eye. Id. at 222. The optic nerve in the other eye was partially covered by a hemorrhage. Those findings were consistent with a child who has been “shaken” or “thrown around.” Id. The hemorrhaging was “still bright red,” which meant that it was “fresh.” Id. at 224. Dr. Hodges would not “have expected [O.A.] to be able to walk around with the level of vision with that blood there” because the blood would have “completely block[ed]” her vision. Id. at 225.

[10] At the townhouse, Evansville Police Department Detective Jonathan Helm interviewed Rhoades, who told him that O.A. had been sleeping on a mattress “by herself” before they found her. Id. at 151. It was not until Detective Helm talked to Cydney that he learned about Rhoades's boyfriend, whom she called “Alex.” Id. at 152. After a sweep of the townhouse, officers found Gonzalez in an upstairs bathroom. He identified himself as “Alex” and said that he was twenty years old. Detective Helm later learned Gonzalez's true identity and age. Detective Helm noted that Gonzalez was “[r]eally stoic. [He d]idn't say much[ and d]idn't seem ․ excited in the way that the other witnesses were, based on what we had just found in the home.” Id. at 153.

[11] After O.A. was declared brain dead, her organs were donated. Dr. Christopher Kiefer, a forensic pathologist who conducted an autopsy, made an initial determination that the “cause of death ․ [was] blunt force trauma of the head and neck.” Ex. Vol. 4, p. 121. However, Dr. Kiefer later concluded that the cause of O.A.’s death was “[u]ndetermined.” Id. at 123. In the final autopsy report, he stated that “[t]he case history and autopsy are suspicious for physical abuse in the hours before death. [But t]he mild extent of injuries and details of events [are] insufficient for determination of cause of death.” Id.

[12] At trial, Gonzalez argued that there was no evidence that he had injured O.A. beyond biting her arm the day before she died. And Gonzalez presented evidence that O.A. had been fighting a cold and had consumed an unknown quantity of cough medicine in the days before she died. The State presented medical testimony to rebut Gonzalez's suggestion that O.A.’s death was related to the cough medicine. The State's evidence showed that Gonzalez was alone with O.A. when she must have sustained an inflicted brain injury that led to her death.

[13] The jury found Gonzalez guilty of O.A.’s murder. The trial court entered judgment and sentenced him to sixty years executed. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[14] Gonzalez argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his murder conviction. Our standard of review is well settled.

When an appeal raises “a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses ․” We consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences that support the [judgment]. “We will affirm ‘if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”

Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Joslyn v. State, 942 N.E.2d 809, 811 (Ind. 2011)).

[15] A person who knowingly or intentionally kills another human being commits murder, a felony. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1. Here, without direct evidence of Gonzalez's guilt, the State relied on circumstantial evidence to make its case.

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. Just as in the probable cause context, when 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).

[16] On appeal, Gonzalez argues that,

[t]here was substantial, undisputed evidence that O.A. was left in the care of Mr. Gonzalez on June 13 and 14, 2024. There was also testimony that he had admitted to biting her on June 13, 202[4,] after she had allegedly bit him as well. However, there was absolutely no indication that he committed any act that would have resulted in the lack of oxygen to her brain or the preretinal hemorrhage found by medical personnel.

Appellant's Br. at 14. Gonzalez maintains that there is a “complete lack of circumstantial evidence” to connect him to O.A.’s death, especially in light of the fact that the cause of death was undetermined. Id. at 15. We do not agree.

[17] As Gonzalez acknowledges, he was the sole caregiver for O.A. on June 13 and 14 when the other members of the household, including Rhoades, were either sleeping or working. After initially blaming the cat, he ultimately admitted that he had bitten O.A.’s arm on June 13. When Carley found O.A.’s lifeless body the morning of June 14, Gonzalez was awake and next to O.A. on the mattress. While Carley immediately noticed that O.A.’s face was purple and that her lips were blue, Gonzalez told Carley that O.A. was just sleeping. After Carley called 9-1-1 and officers and first responders arrived, Gonzalez hid in an upstairs bathroom for an hour until he was found. And he gave the officers a false name and birth date.

[18] While a time of injury could not be definitively established, Dr. Hodges testified that O.A. had significant hemorrhaging in both eyes that looked “fresh” and that would have blocked her vision such that she would likely not have been able to walk around. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 224. Dr. Hodges also testified that O.A. had suffered a brain injury consistent with her having been “shaken” or “thrown around.” Id. at 222. The undisputed evidence showed that cough medicine could not have caused those injuries to O.A.

[19] We hold that the “web of facts,” taken as a whole, supports Gonzalez's murder conviction. Young, 198 N.E.3d at 1176. Gonzalez's argument on appeal is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. [20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   There were no cameras in the townhouse.

Mathias, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Pyle, J., concur.