Jamonte Montral Morrow, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jamonte Morrow appeals his bench conviction for Class B misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident. He 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] On November 20, 2024, Renita Freeman was driving her car when she came to a stop on 56th Street at the intersection with Meridian Street in Indianapolis. Moments later, the driver of a white SUV, later identified as Morrow, rear-ended Freeman's car, causing damage to the rear bumper and trunk. Freeman got out of her car to assess the damage, and Morrow got out of the SUV and offered Freeman “cash” to pay for the damages. Tr. p. 7. Freeman did not accept the offered cash. Morrow did not offer any identification, and he got back into the white SUV and drove in reverse on 56th Street to leave the scene.

[4] At that time and location, James Ritter and his son were driving on 56th Street when they saw Morrow's white SUV driving in reverse and towards their vehicle. Ritter avoided a collision with Morrow, who continued driving in an easterly direction. Ritter then stopped to check on Freeman, who was being attended to by a bystander. Ritter and his son then proceeded to chase Morrow's SUV, and, when they had caught up to it, Ritter's son began making a videorecording of the SUV.

[5] Ritter eventually lost sight of Morrow's SUV. But a short time later, Ritter saw the SUV on Central Avenue, and Ritter began to follow it again. After the SUV parked at a residence on Central Avenue, Ritter saw Morrow and a passenger exit the SUV and enter the residence. Ritter had notified 9-1-1 about the situation, and he stayed outside the residence until police officers arrived.

[6] Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Germayne Curry, who was wearing a body camera, arrived at the residence and spoke with Morrow. Morrow admitted that he had been driving the white SUV when he rear-ended a car on 56th Street; that he briefly spoke with the woman driving that car; and that he left the scene of the accident. Morrow stated that he had tried to exchange information with the other driver but that she would not talk to him. Officer Curry determined that Morrow did not have a valid driver's license.

[7] The State charged Morrow with Class B misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident and Class C infraction driving without a license. The trial court found Morrow guilty as charged and entered judgment and sentence accordingly. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Morrow contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove that he was guilty of Class B misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident.¹ 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)).

[9] Indiana Code section 9-26-1-1.1 provides in relevant part that a person, being the driver of a vehicle that was involved in an accident, shall immediately stop his vehicle at the scene of said accident, or as close as possible thereto, and provide his name and address to any other person involved in the accident.

[10] Morrow's sole contention on appeal is that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove that he was the man who rear-ended Freeman's car. Morrow asserts that his conviction “was based on a sole eyewitness’ identification of him as well as his ‘admission’ to the officer that he was the driver who rear- ended Ms. Freeman's vehicle.” Appellant's Br. at 10. Morrow argues that neither Freeman's in-court identification of Morrow as the man driving the white SUV nor Ritter's documentary evidence and testimony is credible. And Morrow suggests that the body camera footage and Officer Curry's testimony regarding his admission is insufficient to support his conviction.²

[11] Morrow's argument on appeal is a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. The State presented ample evidence of Morrow's guilt, most notably the body camera footage of Morrow's admission of guilt shortly after the accident.

[12] For these reasons, we affirm Morrow's conviction for Class B misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Morrow does not challenge the Class C infraction for driving without a license.

2.   Morrow moved to suppress the admission at trial, but he does not appeal the court's denial of that motion.

Mathias, Judge.

May, J., and Felix, J., concur.