Michael Coleman, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Michael Coleman (“Coleman”) appeals, following a jury trial, his conviction for murder.¹ He argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence obtained from his cell phone (“the cell phone evidence”). Concluding that any error in the admission of this evidence was harmless, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether any error in the trial court's admission of the cell phone evidence was harmless.

Facts

[3] In May 2023, Sonny Gilbert (“Gilbert”) was shot during an armed robbery (“the May 2023 shooting”). Gilbert identified Andre Perry (“Perry”) as the shooter. Further, Gilbert told Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) Detective Aaron Ramos (“Detective Ramos”) that a man named Michael or Derek Coleman had been present at the scene of the robbery but had not participated in it. The State subsequently charged Perry with aggravated battery and robbery. Perry requested a speedy trial, which took place in early August 2023. Gilbert testified at Perry's trial, and a jury convicted him of both charges. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced him to fifty-six (56) years in the Department of Correction.

[4] Also, in August 2023, Wael Helo (“Helo”) owned an audio shop (“the audio shop”), which was located on the east side of Indianapolis near the intersection of 38th Street and Keystone Avenue. The audio shop provided services for vehicles, including window tinting and the installation of stereo systems. Additionally, the audio shop included a garage (“the garage”) where the employees worked and a large parking lot (“the parking lot”). Further, the audio shop had sixteen cameras placed throughout the garage and the parking lot. Those cameras captured the events that took place as set forth below.

[5] On August 19, 2023, at approximately 12:40 p.m., Helo was in the garage checking his employees’ work on several cars. A few minutes later, a gray Toyota Highlander (“the Toyota”) pulled into the parking lot, and a black man (“the man”) exited the front passenger's side of the vehicle. The man was wearing a baseball cap, baggy black shorts, and a large t-shirt that he had not tucked into his shorts. In addition, the man had a large silver chain that appeared to be attached to both the waistband of his shorts and to an item located in the pocket of his shorts. The silver chain included a medallion. Further, the man was carrying a cell phone that was attached to a lanyard.

[6] The man entered the garage and approached Helo, who recognized the man because he had previously worked on the man's car speakers. Helo did not know the man's name. After Helo and the man had spoken for less than ten seconds, Gilbert, who had brought his car to the audio shop to have its windows tinted, walked past the man. The man immediately turned and approached Gilbert. Ten seconds later, the man pulled a gun out of his pocket and began shooting at Gilbert. As Gilbert turned and ran through the garage, the man followed him and continued to shoot at him. Gilbert ran around several cars in the garage and then ran into the parking lot. The man pursued Gilbert into the parking lot and continued to shoot at him.² While the man was shooting at Gilbert, the driver of the Toyota drove up next to the man, and he got into the front passenger seat before the driver drove out of the parking lot.

[7] Gilbert ran to a nearby house and collapsed on the driveway. The homeowner, who had heard twelve to fifteen gunshots and who had seen Gilbert collapse on her driveway, called 911. When IMPD officers arrived at the scene, Gilbert appeared to be in critical condition, but he was able to communicate with the officers. When one of the officers (“the IMPD officer”), who was wearing a body camera, asked him who had shot him, Gilbert responded, “Porky.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 118, Confidential Ex. Vol. 3, Ex. 2 at 3:45). When the IMPD officer again asked Gilbert who had shot him, Gilbert first responded “Derek Coleman” and then responded “Michael Coleman.” (Confidential Ex. Vol. 3 Ex. 2 at 4:25-4:30). Gilbert, who had suffered five gunshot wounds, was transported by ambulance to the hospital, where he later died. A forensic pathologist determined that Gilbert's cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds and that his manner of death was a homicide.

[8] Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Homicide Detective Matthew Melkey (“Detective Melkey”) was assigned as the lead investigator on the case. After reviewing the audio shop's videos, Detective Melkey “began looking into the names of Michael and Derek Coleman just to see and compare from the [audio shop's] video to individuals with those names.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 38). Detective Melkey located several Michael and Derek Colemans in IMPD's reporting system, and he checked each of those individuals through the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“the BMV”), which returned photographs of each individual. Thereafter, Detective Melkey compared the BMV photographs to the man in the video who had shot Gilbert. Detective Melkey “locate[d] one Michael Coleman that matched the description from the video.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 38). That Michael Coleman is the defendant in this case.

[9] In addition, while reviewing the audio shop's videos, Detective Melkey was able to see the Toyota's license plate number, and he ran that number through a BMV check. According to the BMV report, an Indianapolis man owned the Toyota. However, Detective Melkey learned that that man had sold the Toyota to a man in Anderson, and the Anderson man had given the Toyota to his girlfriend, who also lived in Anderson. In addition, Detective Melkey placed the Toyota's license plate number in the Flock System, which “is a license plate reader system throughout Marion County as well as a few other surrounding counties.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 158).

[10] Detective Melkey also sent an email to the Anderson Police Department (“APD”) asking officers to be on the lookout (“BOLO”) for the Toyota and for forty-nine-year-old Coleman. The following day, August 20, 2023, an APD officer (“the APD officer”) received a “Flock hit” on the Toyota and located it at a gas pump at a nearby gas station. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 209). The APD officer, who noticed a woman sitting in the driver's seat, confirmed the license plate number and requested back up from additional officers. As those officers were arriving at the gas station and surrounding the Toyota, the APD officer noticed a man, who matched IMPD's BOLO description, approaching the Toyota. The officer approached the man, who identified himself as Michael Coleman. The officer's body camera recorded the officer's interaction with Coleman, who had a silver chain that was attached to his waist and to a wallet in his pocket. The silver chain included a medallion. The officer handcuffed Coleman and transported him to the APD. Coleman was subsequently transported to Indianapolis.

[11] The Toyota was also transported to Indianapolis. The crime scene specialist processed the vehicle and located in the glove compartment a wallet containing Coleman's state identification and insurance cards. In addition, the crime scene specialist found Coleman's cell phone (“the cell phone”), which was attached to a lanyard, in the Toyota's center console.³ Detective Melkey obtained a warrant to search the contents of the cell phone.

[12] In August 2023, the State charged Coleman with murder, Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and an enhancement for using a firearm during the commission of the murder.⁴

[13] In March 2024, while Coleman was incarcerated in the Marion County Jail, he made a telephone call wherein he identified himself as Porky. The telephone call was recorded. In addition, Detective Melkey listened to many of Coleman's jail telephone calls and also heard Coleman identify himself as Porky.

[14] One year later, in March 2025, Coleman filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of the cell phone. According to Coleman, “[t]here was no probable cause to issue a warrant for the [cell] phone and the warrant was overbroad.” (App. Vol. 2 at 191). Following an April 2025 hearing, the trial court denied Coleman's motion.

[15] During Coleman's three-day trial in August 2025, which included fifteen witnesses, the jury heard the facts as set forth above. In particular, Detective Ramos testified about the 2023 shooting, Gilbert's identification of Perry and Coleman, Perry's request for a speedy trial, Gilbert's testimony against Perry at Perry's trial, and Perry's conviction and sentence.

[16] In addition, Detective Melkey testified and identified Coleman in court as the “one Michael Coleman that matched the description from the video.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 38). Detective Melkey also testified that he had listened to many of Coleman's jail telephone calls and had heard Coleman identify himself as Porky.

[17] Detective Melkey further testified, over Coleman's objection, about the information that had been obtained during the search of the cell phone. This evidence falls into three categories. The first category is evidence that links Coleman to the nickname Porky. Detective Melkey testified that the cell phone extractions revealed that Coleman's email address began with “PorkyBossMan2[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 130). Detective Melkey further testified that extractions from the cell phone revealed text messages wherein Coleman had identified himself as Porky.

[18] The second category, as identified by Coleman, is “motive evidence relating to Gilbert's testimony in the prosecution of ․ Perry[.]” (Coleman's Br. 18). Specifically, the trial court admitted into evidence State's Exhibit 204, which included the following text that had been extracted from the cell phone: “one [n-word] took the stand on bro, wit the shooting, bro did some dumb shit, ask for a fast an speedy, dude that got shot took the stand bro got 55an that bitch [n- word] mention my name[.]” (Ex. Vol. 2 at 80) (grammatical errors in the original).

[19] The third category is text messages that Coleman sent shortly after the murder. Detective Melkey testified that the extractions from the cell phone revealed that shortly after Gilbert's murder, Coleman had sent text messages expressing his need for a ride out of town.

[20] In addition to hearing testimony, the jury watched the audio shop's videos, the IMPD officer's body camera video that included Gilbert identifying the shooter as Porky and Michael Coleman, and the APD officer's body camera video. The jury also saw still photographs taken from the videos.

[21] After hearing the testimony and watching the multiple videos, the jury convicted Coleman of murder. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Coleman to sixty-five (65) years in the Department of Correction.

[22] Coleman now appeals.

Decision

[23] Coleman argues that the trial court erred in admitting the cell phone evidence. The State responds that, even assuming that the trial court erred in admitting this evidence, any error was harmless. We agree with the State.

[24] Whether the trial court erred in admitting the cell phone evidence depends on a legal determination, which we review de novo. See Zanders v. State, 118 N.E.3d 736, 741 (Ind. 2019). The admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is subject to a harmless error analysis.⁵ Zanders, 118 N.E.3d at 743. For such errors, “an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (cleaned up). See also Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 25 (1967), reh'g denied.

[25] The State bears the burden to make this showing. Zanders, 118 N.E.3d at 743. Although this is a heavy burden, overcoming it does not require the State to show that “the jury was totally unaware of that feature of the trial later held to have been erroneous.” Id. (cleaned up). “Rather, the reviewing court must find that error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the record.” Id. (cleaned up).

[26] “Whether an error in admitting evidence was harmless in a particular case depends on a host of factors.” Zanders, 118 N.E.3d at 745. Specifically, these factors “include the presence or absence of other, corroborating evidence on material points; whether the [allegedly] impermissibly admitted evidence was cumulative; the overall strength of the prosecution's case; the importance of the [allegedly] impermissible evidence in the prosecution's case; and the extent of cross-examination or questioning on the [allegedly] impermissibly admitted evidence.” Id.

[27] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that the State presented corroborating evidence implicating Coleman in Gilbert's murder. Specifically, the multiple audio shop videos, including the garage videos and the parking lot videos, show a man bearing a striking resemblance to Coleman arriving at the audio shop in the Toyota. The man had a thick silver chain attached to the waistband of his shorts and to an item in his pocket. The silver chain included a medallion. Further, the man was carrying a cell phone that was attached to a lanyard. That man chased Gilbert through the garage and the parking lot while shooting at him at least fifteen times.

[28] When IMPD officers found a critically wounded Gilbert and asked him who had shot him, Gilbert responded, Porky, Derek Coleman, and Michael Coleman. Gilbert was familiar with Coleman because Coleman had been at the scene when Gilbert had been robbed and shot just three months before the shooting in this case. At that time, Gilbert had identified Coleman as both Derek Coleman and Michael Coleman. Further, Coleman's jail telephone calls linked him to the nickname Porky.

[29] Following the shooting, Detective Melkey searched IMPD and BMV records for both a Derek and a Michael Coleman and located one Michael Coleman who matched the man in the audio shop videos. Detective Melkey identified Coleman in court as that Michael Coleman.

[30] We further note that Coleman acknowledges that the cell phone extraction evidence that links him to the nickname Porky is cumulative of other evidence presented at trial that linked him to that nickname. In addition, we conclude that the cell phone extraction evidence regarding the May 2023 shooting is cumulative of Detective Ramos’ testimony regarding that shooting.

[31] Based on the evidence set forth above, we conclude that the State presented a strong case that Coleman murdered Gilbert. Specifically, the State's evidence set forth a compelling case even without the cell phone evidence, much of which was cumulative of other evidence admitted at trial. We further conclude that the State's convincing evidence that Coleman murdered Gilbert “drowned the import” of the cell phone evidence. Zanders, 118 N.E.3d at 753. In addition, the cell phone evidence did not pervade the case. Rather, this evidence was contained in only a small portion of the State's presentation of its case in the three-day trial that included fifteen witnesses. Lastly, we note that Coleman cross-examined Detective Melkey about the cell phone evidence and attempted to call attention to this evidence's weaknesses.

[32] Based on our analysis of the factors set forth in Zanders, we conclude that any error in the admission of the cell phone evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Zanders, 118 N.E.3d at 756 (reviewing the harmless error factors and concluding that even if the admission of Zanders’ historical cell-site location information was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). Accordingly, we affirm Coleman's murder conviction.

[33] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.

2.   A Marion County Crime Lab crime scene specialist (“the crime scene specialist”) subsequently found a total of fifteen shell casings in the garage and the parking lot. All of the shell casings had been fired from the same gun. The crime scene specialist also found bullet holes and Gilbert's blood in the garage.

3.   Coleman stipulated at trial that the cell phone belonged to him. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 131).

4.   The State subsequently filed motions to dismiss the Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and the enhancement charges. The trial court granted both motions.

5.   Coleman cited the Indiana Constitution in his appellate brief. However, in his reply brief, Coleman explained that the citation to the Indiana Constitution had been “made in error. Coleman raises his challenge only under the Fourth Amendment.” (Coleman's Reply Br. 4, n. 1).

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.