Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
Ladriel Chapman, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
 Ladriel Chapman appeals his conviction for murder and argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and the trial court abused its discretion when it did not instruct the jury on reckless homicide. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
 Chapman and Doneasha Galbreath, who was born in December 1998, had two young children together. On June 6, 2020, Gary Kendal observed a red vehicle parked outside the City-County building in Marion County and noticed the motor was running, the window was open, and the music was “really loud.” Transcript Volume II at 179. He also observed a woman later identified as Galbreath slumped over on the passenger side. Kendal reported it to an officer as he walked into the building and called 911 at 10:36 a.m. A Marion County Sheriff's Deputy walked outside to investigate and an IMPD officer and medics arrived. Galbreath was pronounced dead at the scene.
 Meanwhile, at 11:39 a.m., Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Jeffrey Goodin was dispatched to a Circle K on 21st and Shadeland in Marion County regarding an assault investigation. When he arrived, Chapman approached him and indicated that he was the person who called. Officer Goodin asked him if he was assaulted, and Chapman said: “No, I wasn't. What I need is a ride downtown.” Id. at 191. Officer Goodin told Chapman that he was not allowed to transport him and left.
 Officer Goodin was dispatched again to the Circle K after Chapman called back saying that he assaulted someone. Officer Goodin returned to the Circle K and asked Chapman if he assaulted someone, and Chapman said: “Well, I really need a ride downtown.” Id. at 192. Officer Goodin told him he could not give him a ride downtown and asked him what happened. Chapman said: “Well, I was downtown, and I assaulted my girlfriend and I need a ride downtown.” Id. Officer Goodin took Chapman's name and his girlfriend's name, checked with the downtown control operator, and learned no officers were looking for him. Officer Goodin told Chapman no one was looking for him, Chapman said, “Well, I still need a ride downtown,” and Officer Goodin left. Id. at 193.
 At approximately 1:00 p.m., Chapman arrived at the Marion County Jail and stated he needed to speak to a detective. Marion County Sheriff's Deputy Captain Angela Spayd said: “I can't help but notice that you have blood on your person, do you need to speak to a homicide detective?” Id. at 215. Chapman said: “Yes.” Id. Captain Spayd took Chapman into an interview room, and Chapman provided a statement to Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Detective Christopher Craighill.
 Garrett Aderman, a forensic scientist employed by the Indianapolis and Marion County Forensic Service Agency, found in the vehicle a Glock pistol, eight fired cartridge cases, and four fired bullets. He discovered fired bullets that dropped out of the bottom of the front passenger door and did not find any bullets in the driver's side.
 On June 8, 2020, Dr. John Cavanaugh, a forensic pathologist, performed an autopsy of Galbreath and determined that the cause of death was “multiple gunshot wounds of the arm and chest, abdomen, and head.” Transcript Volume III at 12.
 On June 10, 2020, the State charged Chapman with: Count I, murder; Count II, carrying a handgun without a license; Count III, neglect of a dependent as a level 6 felony; and Count IV, neglect of a dependent as a level 6 felony.
 During the jury trial, the State presented the testimony of multiple witnesses including Kendal, Officer Goodin, Captain Spayd, Marilyn Schaler, a forensic evidence technician, Dr. Cavanaugh, Aderman, Detective Craighill, and Mike Putzek, a forensic scientist specializing in firearms identification with the Indianapolis Marion County Forensic Services Agency.
 Putzek testified that he examined the Glock pistol and it was a “model 19, generation 4.” Id. at 126. He also testified:
[I]t is a firearm that uses a box magazine inserted into the grip, must pull the slide to the rear to chamber one, and then you must pull the trigger. When you pull the trigger, it will fire one shot. You have to release that trigger, pull the trigger again, and then that will give you the next shot. And again, each time it slides past the cycle and picks up a cartridge in the chamber, as well as at the same time, extract and eject your cartridge case out when you fire.
Id. at 126-127. The prosecutor asked: “So there is no way to pull the trigger once and have 25 bullets shot?” Id. at 127. Putzek answered: “That's correct. With this particular gun, it's a semi-automatic pistol.” Id.
 After the State rested, Chapman testified that he drove Galbreath to the gas station because she said she had a headache and needed Gatorade. According to his testimony, after the gas station, Galbreath wanted to go “[o]ut east.” Id. at 145. He testified that Galbreath spoke to his mother on the phone and wanted him to take her to his mother's house “[m]ost likely to argue and fight.” Id. at 146. He tried to change the subject, and Galbreath's response was “[r]eal aggressive” and “real mad.” Id. at 147. Chapman “kept trying to ․ ignore her with the music” and he turned the music “[a]ll the way” up. Id. Galbreath “kept turning it down and [he] turned it right back up.” Id. He testified that Galbreath removed a gun from her purse and waved it towards him and pointed it at his temple. He testified that he was scared, slowed the vehicle down, and tried to grab the gun. When asked where Galbreath was holding the gun when he reached for it, he answered: “Towards, like, towards the glove box.” Id. at 149. He indicated that they struggled for the gun, the gun was pointing down, he was able to “get the gun away from her,” and the gun “went off” when he was pulling it away. Id. at 150. When asked where he initially grabbed the gun, he answered: “The top slide.” Id. He indicated he did not remember a lot of details about what happened after that and he “just went blank.” Id. He testified that he had never had a gun pointed at him before or been in a situation where someone was shot. When asked how this affected him emotionally, he answered: “Terrible.” Id. at 151. He testified that he noticed he had blood on him, “got off the highway,” went to the City-County building, stopped the car, exited, “just kept walking,” and “got on the bus.” Id. at 151-152. After he exited the bus, he borrowed a phone and called 911 “[t]o get her some help.” Id. at 152. He testified that he told the 911 operator that “somebody tried to do something to me.” Id. at 153. When asked why he told the 911 operator that, he answered “[b]ecause if I told them, they wouldn't have believed me” and “[s]o they'd come faster.” Id. He testified that he called 911 a second time and stated that he hurt his girlfriend. He stated that he eventually took the bus back downtown where he spoke to police. When asked if he could say for certain that he did not fire the gun when he wrestled it away, he answered: “I can't say.” Id. at 157. He also stated: “It was so much going on.” Id. at 158. He testified that, at the time he spoke to the detective, he believed the gun was fired once.
 On cross-examination, Chapman indicated that he and Galbreath were not in a relationship and were fighting. When asked if they were fighting because Galbreath thought he was in a relationship with his mother, he answered: “No, she wanted me to – she wanted me to live there ․ with her.” Id. at 164-165. The prosecutor asked: “Did you tell the detective that she was mad because she thought you were f------ your mother?” Id. at 165. He answered: “Yeah, that was one – that was one of the things.” Id. He indicated that his hand was on the gun. The prosecutor asked: “And it went off, correct?” Id. at 166. He answered: “Both our hands was on there.” Id. He testified that he remembered the gun going off one time. He indicated that the transcript of his statement to police reflected that he stated at one point regarding how many shots were fired: “I don't remember, two or three.” Id. at 170. He also acknowledged that he lied to the 911 operator by telling her his name was “De-cuts (phonetic),” telling her he had been assaulted, and giving a description of the suspect. Id. at 177. He also stated that he did not tell Officer Goodin about Galbreath during the first encounter. When asked why he did not pick up Galbreath's phone and call 911, he answered: “Because I had blood on me.” Id. at 190. He later asserted he did not know the code to access Galbreath's phone. He also stated that he grabbed the gun because he did not “want to get shot.” Id. at 204.
 Defense counsel tendered two final instructions including self-defense and reckless homicide. The prosecutor argued that a reckless homicide instruction was not supported by the evidence. The court indicated it would instruct the jury on self-defense but declined to give the instruction on reckless homicide. It stated in part: “You have evidence before me as to self-defense, but [Chapman's] own testimony isn't that the gun recklessly went off, it's that he was grabbing it and it – because in self-defense.” Id. at 219. It stated that an instruction on reckless homicide was not supported by the evidence.
 On rebuttal, Putzek testified regarding the safety features of the Glock 19 Gen 4. When asked if it was a fair assessment that when two individuals were struggling over that particular firearm “unless one of the individuals specifically has their finger on the trigger and pulls it back, it's not going to go off,” he answered affirmatively. Id. at 228. He also testified:
So let's assume somebody has grabbed the top of the slide on the firearm, and the other individual has their finger on the trigger, if that person is holding the gun by the slide and the trigger is pulled, the gun will fire, it will discharge a round, but the gasses are trying to push that slide to the rear. If you're holding onto that slide, you're going to retard that ability for that slide to go to the rear. So what's going to happen is, yeah, the gun fired – it fired that round, but the slide cannot go to the rear, so it cannot extract an empty cartridge case and kick it out and cannot pick up another round out of the magazine and feed it into the chamber. So it will fire if you have hold of that slide, but it's not going to allow for the cycling process to bring the next cartridge up into the chamber and get rid of your empty cartridges.
Id. The prosecutor asked: “So in order for that weapon to be ready to fire again, the slide would have to be pulled back and the gun prepared again?” Id. Putzek answered: “That's correct. You'd have to pull the slide back manually in order to get that casing out, and then re-chamber a new round and then you're ready to fire.” Id.
 Detective Craighill testified that he took Chapman's statement on June 6, 2020, and Chapman talked about the incident in the vehicle. The prosecutor asked: “And he talked about the – she was playing with the gun, and it went off. Did that version ever change?” Id. at 232. He answered: “No.” Id. at 233. When asked if Chapman indicated that he was actually holding the gun during the struggle and Galbreath “no longer had it,” he answered affirmatively. Id. The following exchange also occurred:
Q Detective, now that you've had an opportunity to review [a transcript of Chapman's statement], I'm going to remove it from you. Specifically, did you ask him, [“]When you grabbed the gun, did you have it? Did she have any part of the gun?[”]
A Yes, I asked that.
Q And what did he say?
A He said, “No.”
Q And then, you said, “So you grabbed it completely?” And what does he say?
Q And then, you say, “You're holding it completely?” And there's a no verbal response, correct?
Q So, his final narrative was that gun was fully in his hand at the time it went off?
Id. at 235.
 The jury found Chapman guilty of murder and not guilty of the remaining counts. The court sentenced Chapman to sixty years.
 The first issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Chapman's conviction. Chapman argues that there was no evidence establishing that he knowingly killed Galbreath and points to his own testimony. When reviewing a challenge to sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility. Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d 878, 882 (Ind. 2017). We consider only the evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Id. We will affirm the conviction if there is probative evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
 Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 provides that “[a] person who ․ knowingly or intentionally kills another human being ․ commits murder, a felony.” “A person engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b). “Because knowledge is the mental state of the actor, the trier of fact must resort to reasonable inferences of its existence.” Leonard, 80 N.E.3d at 883 (quoting Young v. State, 761 N.E.2d 387, 389 (Ind. 2002)).
 The record reveals that eight fired cartridge cases and four bullets were recovered from the vehicle and no bullets were recovered from the driver's side. Officer Goodin testified that Chapman said: “Well, I was downtown, and I assaulted my girlfriend and I need a ride downtown.” Transcript Volume II at 192. During an autopsy, Dr. Cavanaugh recovered three bullets and one fragment from Galbreath's body and determined that she died from “multiple gunshot wounds of the arm and chest, abdomen, and head.” Transcript Volume III at 12. Putzek testified regarding the manner in which the firearm would discharge. Detective Craighill indicated that Chapman's final narrative during his statement was that the gun was fully in his hand “at the time it went off.” Id. at 235. Based upon the record, we conclude that evidence of probative value was presented from which a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Chapman was guilty of murder.
 The next issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it did not instruct the jury on reckless homicide. To determine whether to instruct a jury on a lesser included offense, the trial court must engage in a three-part analysis. Leonard, 80 N.E.3d at 885. The first two parts require the trial court to consider whether the lesser included offense is inherently or factually included in the greater offense. Id. If it is, “then the trial court must determine if there is a serious evidentiary dispute regarding the element that distinguishes the lesser offense from the principal charge.” Id. “[T]he distinguishing element between knowing murder and reckless homicide is culpability.” Id. (comparing Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b) (“A person engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.”) with Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(c) (“A person engages in conduct ‘recklessly’ if he engages in the conduct in plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm that might result and the disregard involves a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct.”).
 “When considering whether there is a serious evidentiary dispute, the trial court examines the evidence presented by both parties regarding the element(s) distinguishing the greater offense from the lesser one.” Id. “This involves evaluating the ‘weight and credibility of [the] evidence,’ and then determining the ‘seriousness of any resulting dispute.’ ” Id. (quoting Fish v. State, 710 N.E.2d 183, 185 (Ind. 1999)). Because the trial court found no serious evidentiary dispute existed, we will reverse only if that finding was an abuse of discretion. Id. “In our review, ‘we accord the trial court considerable deference, view the evidence in a light most favorable to the decision, and determine whether the trial court's decision can be justified in light of the evidence and circumstances of the case.’ ” Id. (quoting Fish, 710 N.E.2d at 185).
 In light of the eight fired cartridge cases and four bullets recovered from the vehicle, the fact no bullets were recovered from the driver's side of the vehicle, the three bullets and one fragment recovered from Galbreath's body, the testimony regarding the operation of the firearm, Chapman's conduct after the shooting, and the other evidence in the record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion. See id. at 886 (affirming the trial court's refusal to instruct a jury on reckless homicide as a lesser-included offense of murder and holding that, “[w]hile the evidence may not be entirely free from doubt, viewing it in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision, it is substantial enough to support the trial court's conclusion that no serious evidentiary dispute existed,” and that “[i]ndeed, the trial court's decision is given considerable deference because the court has the best view of the evidence, and here [the defendant] failed to develop enough specific evidence to indicate to the court that there was a serious dispute”) (citations and internal quotation marks deleted).
 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Chapman's conviction for murder.
Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Response sent, thank you
Docket No: Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-CR-635
Decided: December 20, 2022
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)