Evan Chaffin, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Following a jury trial, Evan Chaffin was convicted of two counts of armed robbery, Level 3 felonies. Chaffin appeals and claims that insufficient evidence supports his convictions. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Issue

[2] Chaffin presents one issue: whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Chaffin's convictions for armed robbery.

Facts

[3] On April 13, 2024, a man entered a branch of Fifth Third Bank located in Castleton. The man wielded a black handgun and stated, in a non-native accent: “This is a robbery.” Tr. Vol. II p. 138. He approached one of the tellers on duty and told her, “Cooperate. It's not worth your life.” Id. at 139. The man told the teller to take “everything out of [her] till.” Id. at 144. The teller complied and handed the man over $2,600 in cash. The man put the cash into a plastic grocery bag and then left the bank.

[4] Law enforcement officers were summoned to the bank and began to investigate the robbery. The teller described the robber as a white male with a slender build, average height, and darker eyes; the robber was wearing a black plaid shirt with yellow or white stripes, black pants and shoes, and a black bandana over the lower part of his face. He also wore a wool hat that the teller described as a “shade of yellow.” Id. at 140. Security cameras in the bank captured video of the robbery.

[5] Officers obtained video surveillance footage from nearby businesses, and one of the videos depicted Chaffin wearing black pants and shoes while walking away from the bank through a parking lot shortly after the robbery. This drew the interest of the lead investigator, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) Detective Jonathan Schultz. Detective Schultz shared a screenshot of the video with other officers as depicting a possible suspect. Officers also obtained surveillance video from a hotel near the bank where Chaffin was staying; this video showed Chaffin carrying a flannel shirt and a plastic bag similar to those seen in the video from the bank and used in the robbery.

[6] On April 19, 2024, Chaffin was staying at a hotel on the northwest side of Indianapolis. That same day, a man matching Chaffin's general physical description went into a Regions Bank near that hotel. The man was wearing a black sweatshirt and pants, a red hat, and a red bandana over his face. The man approached a teller, pointed a black handgun at him, and told him to empty his drawer and give him the money. The man told the teller not to give him any bills that were trackable or any dye packs. The teller complied with the demands and handed him approximately $3,000 in cash. The man put the money in a plastic grocery bag and left the bank branch. Police were again called to the scene to investigate. The teller described the robber as being a white male of average height with a slim build.

[7] The following day, IMPD Officer Timothy McGinley was patrolling on the northwest side of Indianapolis when he saw Chaffin walk across the street. Officer McGinley stopped to talk with Chaffin because he believed Chaffin fit the description of the man who had robbed the Fifth Third Bank. Specifically, he recognized the man's hairline, facial hair, shoes, and gait. Chaffin provided his name and date of birth to the officer, but Chaffin misspelled his own last name when doing so. Chaffin told the officer that he was staying at a nearby hotel and was unarmed. Officer McGinley called for backup, and Officer Jeffrey Merlik arrived on the scene. Officer Merlik noticed a handgun in Chaffin's pocket. The officers took Chaffin into custody and, in addition to the handgun, found $3,115 in cash on his person, which roughly matched the amount taken from the Regions Bank. Police obtained a warrant to search Chaffin's hotel room and found a black handgun, ammunition, a blue bandana, and the shirt Chaffin wore on the day of the Fifth Third robbery.

[8] On April 24, 2024, the State charged Chaffin with two counts of armed robbery, Level 3 felonies. A jury trial began on June 3, 2025, at the conclusion of which the jury found Chaffin guilty as charged. On June 23, 2025, the trial court sentenced Chaffin to consecutive terms of ten years on each count. Chaffin now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Chaffin does not deny that someone robbed the banks on April 13 and 19, 2024. He claims only that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to identify Chaffin as the man who robbed either bank. We disagree.

A. Standard of Review

[10] “Sufficiency of the evidence claims warrant a deferential standard of review in which we ‘neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the jury.’ ” Fuller v. State, 261 N.E.3d 821, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (quoting Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024)). 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.” Id. On appeal, “we consider only the evidence that supports the jury's determination, not evidence that might undermine it.” Id. We will affirm the conviction “ ‘unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Sutton v. State, 167 N.E.3d 800, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007)). Evidence is sufficient “if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.” Id.

[11] With regard to the identity of the defendant, we have explained:

In every case, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the person who committed the charged offense. Cf., e.g., Taylor v. State, 86 N.E.3d 157, 163 (Ind. 2017). “Identity may be established entirely by circumstantial evidence and the logical inferences drawn therefrom.” Cherry v. State, 57 N.E.3d 867, 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. For there to be sufficient evidence regarding identity, the “[i]dentification testimony need not necessarily be unequivocal[.]” Id. Moreover, to the extent the case involves circumstantial evidence identifying the defendant, the evidence is sufficient if a “reasonable [fact-finder] could have inferred that the defendant committed the crime[ ] charged.” Young v. State, 198 N.E.3d 1172, 1182 (Ind. 2022).

Scheel v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1278, 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied.

B. The State presented sufficient evidence to identify Chaffin as the robber.

[12] With regard to the Fifth Third robbery, Chaffin matched the physical description of the man who robbed the bank. Chaffin was staying at a hotel near the bank at the time of the robbery and was captured on surveillance video walking away from the bank through a nearby parking lot shortly after the robbery. At that time, Chaffin was wearing black pants and shoes consistent with the robber's description. Surveillance video from the hotel where Chaffin was staying on the day of the robbery showed Chaffin carrying a flannel shirt and a plastic bag similar to those used in the robbery. When Chaffin was apprehended, a search of his hotel room revealed a black handgun like the one used in the robbery, a bandana similar to that worn by the robber, and the shirt he had been seen wearing on the day of the Fifth Third Bank robbery.

[13] With regard to the Regions Bank robbery, Chaffin matched the general physical description of the man who robbed the bank, and he was again staying at a hotel near the bank. The day after the robbery, Chaffin was apprehended with $3,115 in cash, which is close to the amount taken from the Regions Bank the day before. He also had plastic grocery bags similar to those used in the robbery. Chaffin's hotel room contained a black handgun that matched the one used in the robbery. From this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Chaffin was the man who robbed both banks. See Hill v. State, 773 N.E.2d 336, 347-48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that sufficient evidence established that defendant was the person involved in the armed robbery of liquor store where defendant was seen in the area of the robbery shortly after the robbery, was wearing similar clothing to the robber, had over $300 on his person in small bills, and his fingerprint was on the window of the car the robber drove), aff'd on reh'g, 777 N.E.2d 795.

[14] Chaffin argues that the evidence is insufficient because no witness identified him as the robber. But, as noted, such direct evidence is not required; instead, the identity of the perpetrator can be established solely by circumstantial evidence. Scheel, 235 N.E.3d at 1283 (citing Cherry, 57 N.E.3d at 877). Chaffin also argues that certain differences between the robberies suggest that they were perpetrated by two different individuals. For example, the robber at the Fifth Third Bank wore a black bandana, whereas the Regions Bank robber wore a red bandana; the Fifth Third Bank robber spoke with a foreign accent, while the Regions Bank robber had no accent; and the Fifth Third Bank robber asked the teller for the money in her “till,” whereas the Regions Bank robber used the term “drawer.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 151, 183.

[15] But accents are easily faked, and bandanas are easily switched. Moreover, this evidence was presented and rejected by the jury, who determined that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Chaffin was the man who robbed both banks. Chaffin's arguments are simply requests that we consider evidence that does not favor the convictions and reweigh the evidence, which we may not do.

Conclusion

[16] The State presented evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that Chaffin robbed both banks. We, therefore, affirm Chaffin's convictions.

[17] Affirmed.

Tavitas, Chief Judge.

Weissmann, J., and Foley, J., concur.