Gregory A. Robinson, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Gregory Robinson appeals his convictions for murder and assisting a criminal, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain evidence. Finding the trial court erred in admitting the evidence but that such error was harmless, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

1. The Murders

[2] On the night of October 18, 2016, Robinson, his brothers Christopher Robinson ¹ and Reginald Gant, their friend Priya Whitt, and Anton Moore were hanging out at a house on Poinsette Drive in Fort Wayne. Gant and Moore were friends as well as colleagues and often bought and sold drugs together. Around 9:00 p.m. that night, Gant asked Whitt if he and Moore could take her car to go somewhere, but she didn't want them to drive her car, so she took them to a nearby strip club where Moore completed a drug deal. The trio then drove back toward the house. Moore sat in the front passenger seat and Gant sat in the back.

[3] As they approached Poinsette Dr., Gant told Whitt to “hit the block[,]” meaning drive around the block again. Transcript Vol. 3 at 49. Whitt did as she was told, and as she turned the first corner, she “hear[d] a shot.” Id. Whitt turned and saw that Moore had been shot in the head, and when his body “jerked[,]” Gant shot him in the head again. Id. Gant then told Whitt to return to the house and back into the driveway. When they arrived, Gant waived the gun at Whitt and told her to “chill out” or she would be next. Id. at 52. Then he had Robinson and Christopher come outside. They told Whitt to open the trunk, lined it with trash bags, and then removed Moore's body from the front seat. Ultimately, they put his body in the garage.

[4] Gant expressed concern that Moore had been dropped off by someone earlier that night who would know where Moore was and who he was with. Gant then told Whitt to drive all of them to New Haven. He sat in the front passenger seat with his gun pointed toward Whitt, and Robinson and Christopher sat in the back seat. Gant directed Whitt to the home of Jaime Klein, Moore's girlfriend. The group knocked on her door, she let them come inside, and she asked about Moore. Gant asked if anyone else was in the home, and Klein told them that her five-year-old daughter was asleep in her room. Then he told everyone to search the house without explaining what he was looking for. No one went into the child's room.

[5] Eventually, everyone ended up back in the kitchen area. Wielding a butcher knife from Klein's kitchen, Gant began to stab Klein while Robinson held her from behind. Robinson let her go but then stabbed her as well. Whitt and Christopher were in the kitchen but did not participate in stabbing Klein. Between the two of them, Gant and Robinson stabbed Klein dozens of times, and then the group left. On the way back to Poinsette Dr., Gant told Whitt to turn around because they'd forgotten something. When they arrived back at Klein's house, Christopher ran inside and then returned to the car. On the way back to Poinsette Dr., Gant had Whitt pull over on a bridge where the men threw unidentified items into the water below.

[6] The group returned to the house on Poinsette Dr. in the early hours of October 19. The three men moved Moore's body from the garage to Whitt's trunk, and Robinson stayed at the house while Gant had Whitt drive him and Christopher to a location where they could dispose of the body. Once again, Gant sat in the front seat as he directed Whitt to an apartment complex. Gant and Christopher removed Moore's body from the trunk and disposed of it in a ditch near the complex. Whitt stayed with the car until the pair returned, and then they returned to Poinsette Dr. The group spent the remainder of the night and early morning at the house.

[7] At some point after the murders, Whitt contacted Jawaun Follins, with whom she shared a child and had a friendship.² She drove to his home near Foster Park and told him about the murders. Follins said she should call the police, but Whitt didn't want to. He would later describe Whitt as “devastated,” “crushed,” and “scared[.]” Id. at 134. While Whitt was still at Follins’ house, Robinson called her and she immediately left only to return with Robinson thirty minutes later. Robinson threatened Follins, warning him that “if [he] said anything [he] would be next.” Id. at 136. Then Robinson and Whitt left. Within a day or two, Follins saw Whitt again, and while she was on the phone with Robinson, he threatened Follins again. Follins did not contact authorities at that time.

2. The Aftermath

A. The Car

[8] Before daylight on October 19, Whitt left Poinsette Dr. and drove to her job to begin working at 8:00 a.m. During her shift, she went outside and looked at her car. In broad daylight, she could see that her car was covered in blood as well as other evidence of the events from the night before. Gant told her to meet him and Robinson so they could clean the car, but after trying, they found they couldn't clean it sufficiently. Gant told Whitt to leave the car there and they would “figure out something.” Id. at 68.

[9] That night, Gant told Whitt that he and Robinson “need[ed] to get out town[.]” Id. at 70. Using a different car, Whitt drove them to Chicago, dropped them off somewhere in the city, and drove back to Fort Wayne. On her way back, authorities called her to tell her that her car had been found on fire. The fire investigator observed what was left of a melted red gas can in the backseat of the car and ultimately concluded that someone had intentionally started the fire.

B. 911 Calls

[10] On the morning of October 19, two 911 calls were made related to the two murder victims. At approximately 8:00 a.m., a man was walking his dog on a trail near his apartment complex when he saw Moore's body lying in a ditch. He called 911 and waited for authorities to arrive. Moore was pronounced dead at the scene. An autopsy later confirmed that Moore died from two bullet wounds to his head.

[11] Also around 8:00 a.m., a man was driving to work when he noticed a very young girl walking near the road with a backpack on, “profusely crying.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 176. Because there were no schools nearby, he pulled over and took her to his truck. After she calmed down, she told him her “mom was not moving in the kitchen.” Id. at 177. As the man called 911, the young girl directed him to her house. At the house, he told the girl to stay in the truck. Meanwhile, the 911 operator instructed him to go inside to assess the situation, and when he entered the house, he found Klein lying on the floor in a pool of blood. The operator had him check for a pulse, but he found none. Not long after the call, authorities arrived and began their investigation. An autopsy later determined that Klein suffered a bruise on the back of her head, two fractured teeth, abrasions on her mouth, and multiple cuts on the front and back of her neck, upper chest, right shoulder, arms and hands, chest, and abdomen. Some of the stab wounds punctured her lungs, diaphragm, liver, and spinal cord. Her cause of death was “multiple stab wounds.” Tr. Vol. 3 at 114.

C. The Investigation

[12] Detective James Krueger of the New Haven Police Department led the investigation into Klein's death. When he arrived at Klein's house on the morning of the 19th, he observed that it was in disarray—pillows and couch cushions had been sliced and were scattered all over the living room, the refrigerator door was ajar with ice cream melting onto the floor, and kitchen drawers and cabinets were open. He also saw Klein lying on the floor with a steak knife protruding from the side of her body. He obtained a search warrant that same morning and contacted the Indiana State Police (ISP), who conducted the crime scene investigation. Detective Krueger also received a call from Detective Roy Sutphin of the Fort Wayne Homicide Division, who was the lead investigator into Moore's death. Detective Sutphin informed Detective Krueger that Moore had been found dead. By then, law enforcement knew Klein and Moore had been dating, and they believed their deaths were connected. As a result, the two agencies coordinated their investigations. Both teams canvassed the respective areas where the victims were found, asking people if they had witnessed anything, had any information, or had cameras that may have captured relevant footage.

[13] Gant's name came up early in the investigation as a possible suspect, and the authorities knew of his friendship and business dealings with Moore. During the search of Klein's home, the ISP crime scene investigator swabbed blood on the floor that was suspected to have come from someone other than Klein. The FBI's DNA database later identified Gant as a possible match prompting Detective Krueger to obtain a DNA sample from Gant. Further testing confirmed that the swabbed blood was his. Thereafter, Gant became the focus of the investigation. Whitt's name was also circulating amongst law enforcement because her car was registered to the address at which Gant resided. The detectives interviewed her twice in the months following the murders, but she provided no information. Detective Krueger observed that “she couldn't get out of [the] [p]olice [d]epartment quick enough [be]cause she did not want to be there, and didn't want anything more to do with [them].” Id. at 15. At the time, Robinson was not considered a person of interest. The detectives interviewed other individuals connected to Klein, Moore, and Gant, but ultimately, the investigation “went cold.” Id. at 17. During the years that followed, the detectives continued to investigate but “were just missing ․ a lot of little pieces ․” Id. at 18.

[14] However, in August 2023, Moore's sister, Jametha Stewart, learned that Follins had information about the events of October 2016. The two had run into each other at a mutual friend's house and after she and Follins discussed her brother's death, Stewart realized that Follins “knew stuff that nobody knew.” Id. at 158. At her insistence, Follins agreed to talk to the police. He relayed the information Whitt had shared with him about the night of the murders to Detective Krueger. The detective would later explain that Follins “knew more about [the murders] than [he] did.” Id. at 19.

3. Pre-Trial

[15] On September 27, 2023, Gant, Robinson, and Whitt were each charged with two counts of murder, a felony.³ Gant was in federal custody for a separate matter at the time, but Robinson and Whitt were arrested shortly after the charges were filed. In October, Whitt indicated that she had information to share with the State about the case. She gave an interview on the 18th and relayed the events of October 2016 which were consistent with the facts above, particularly as to Robinson's participation, but there were also a few notable differences—including that she didn't indicate Christopher had been present. See State's Exhibit 140 (Interview 1). In November, the State offered Whitt a plea agreement in which she would plead guilty to two counts of Level 5 felony assisting a criminal, her sentences on those counts would run consecutively, and she would agree to “testify truthfully in any criminal or civil proceedings brought by the State against other defendants or accomplices[.]” Exhibits at 63. In exchange, the State would dismiss the murder charges. She signed the plea agreement on December 18.

[16] Nine days later, Whitt requested another interview with the State to correct a few minor details she had gotten wrong in her first interview and because she had since recalled that Christopher was present for most of the October 2016 events. See State's Ex. 141 (Interview 2). She said she “totally forgot that [he] was there.” Id. at 2:13-2:16. Whitt explained that he was present almost the entire night.⁴ Additionally, in Interview 1, she said Moore's body had been moved from the front seat to the trunk of her car, and that it was in the trunk when the group went to Klein's house. But in Interview 2, she clarified that Moore's body had been moved from the car to the garage, where it remained while the group went to Klein's house. Then they moved it to the trunk when they returned to Poinsette Dr.

[17] Based on the additional information from Whitt's interviews, in July 2024, the State revised the charges in Robinson's case: it filed a supplemental probable cause affidavit, a motion to dismiss the second murder charge (for Moore's death), and a motion to add a charge of Level 5 felony assisting a criminal.⁵ The trial court granted the motions.

4. Trial & Sentencing

[18] In September 2025, the State tried Robinson in a four-day jury trial. A majority of the individuals referenced above testified at trial ⁶ and relayed some portion of the facts above. The State also introduced numerous pieces of evidence including photographs of: (1) Klein's home, the manner in which she was found, and her autopsy; (2) Moore's body in the ditch where it was found and his autopsy; and (3) Whitt's car after it had been set on fire. Robinson did not testify.

[19] Whitt's testimony was substantively the same as the information she provided during her interviews. On cross-examination, defense counsel confirmed that Whitt had met with detectives twice in the six months following the murders but provided them with none of the information given in the interviews or that she testified to at trial. Defense counsel continued:

Q Okay, and you were arrested then in 2023?

[Whitt:] Correct.

Q And you were arrested on two (2) counts of murder?

A Correct.

Q Okay, the murder of Jaime Klein?

A Correct.

Q And the murder of Anton Moore?

A Correct.

․

Q Okay, so after you were arrested you discussed the . . contents of your testimony with the police?

A With my lawyer first, and then with the police, correct.

Q Okay, but only after you were arrested?

A Correct.

Tr. Vol. 3 at 82-83. She also confirmed that her plea agreement set her maximum sentence at twelve years, required her to testify at the trial, and provided that if she had failed to do so, her plea would be revoked, she would return to jail, and the murder charges would be reinstated. Id. at 83-84.

[20] During Detective Krueger's testimony later in the trial, the State offered the recordings of Whitt's two interviews into evidence, and defense counsel objected. Outside the presence of the jury, the State argued Whitt's statements during the interviews were prior consistent statements under Evidence Rule 801(d). It claimed they were admissible to “rebut a charge of recent fabrication[,]” as the defense's cross-examination “centered on her plea agreement, what she was facing, what she was avoiding, what she was getting, and then her release from jail ․” Id. at 215. Defense counsel argued the evidence was cumulative of Whitt's live testimony, that the videos of her proffers were prejudicial because they were “more emotional[,]” that her testimony was the best evidence of her story, and that the defense had not insinuated on cross-examination that the State improperly induced Whitt to give a statement in exchange for a plea agreement. Id. at 240. The trial court overruled defense's objection and admitted the interviews, which were played in their entirety for the jury.

[21] The jury found Robinson guilty on both counts. The court imposed consecutive sentences of sixty-three years for the murder of Klein and four years for assisting a criminal to be executed in the Department of Correction. Robinson now appeals, challenging only his convictions.

Discussion and Decision

[22] Robinson argues the trial court erred by admitting Whitt's police interviews into evidence. “We review challenges to the admission of evidence for an abuse of the trial court's discretion.” Setlak v. State, 234 N.E.3d 215, 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans denied. A court has abused its discretion where its decision “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party's substantial rights.” Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 260 (Ind. 2013).

[23] Here, Whitt's police interviews were admitted on the basis that they constituted prior consistent statements under Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(B). Generally, out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted are hearsay and are inadmissible at trial. Ind. Evidence Rules 801(c), 802. However, certain statements are not considered hearsay. For example,

a statement is not hearsay if ․ [t]he declarant testifies and is subject to cross examination about a prior statement, and the statement: ․ (B) is consistent with the declarant's testimony, and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying[.]

Evid. R. 801(d)(1)(B).

[24] The following are true here: (1) Whitt testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination; (2) her trial testimony was consistent with the statements she made during the police interviews; and (3) the interviews were offered to rebut Robinson's questions on cross-examination challenging her motives for testifying.⁷ Thus, we focus our analysis on whether Whitt made these prior consistent statements before or after she had a motive to fabricate—if they were made before, they were admissible; if they were made after, they were inadmissible. Bassett v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1201, 1214 (Ind. 2008) (quoting Moreland v. State, 701 N.E.2d 288, 293 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)), cert. denied. Robinson argues Whitt's interviews occurred after the motive to fabricate had arisen. In determining when a motive to fabricate has arisen, our Supreme Court has said:

The bottom line ․ is that in situations where there is no evidence tending to implicate the declarant in the crime, the question of when the motive to fabricate arose is a sufficiently fact-sensitive inquiry (in contrast to situations in which the declarant is implicated in the crime when a motive to fabricate likely arises immediately upon the commission of the crime) that we will defer to the trial court's decision whether or not to admit the statement.

Id. at 1211-12 (citing Stephenson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 463, 475 (Ind. 2001), cert. denied) (emphasis added).

[25] In conducting the fact-sensitive inquiry here, we find our Supreme Court's decision in Bouye v. State illustrative. 699 N.E.2d 620 (Ind. 1998). There, the declarant initially denied any involvement in the underlying murder. Id. at 624. However, he was arrested a month later in connection with the murder and the police told him they “already had other information.” Id. at 625. He then “changed his story and gave a lengthy statement ․ implicating the defendant in the murder[.]” Id. Five months after giving that statement, he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery, carrying a handgun without a license, and assisting a criminal. Id. His plea agreement required him to testify against codefendants at trial, and when he did so, his testimony was consistent with what he told police in his earlier statement. Id. At trial, the defendant attacked the declarant's motives on cross-examination, “noting that [he] had initially denied any involvement or knowledge of the events at issue in the defendant's case.” Id. On appeal, our Supreme Court concluded that the declarant's statement to police “was made after his motive to fabricate arose[,]” making his statement to police inadmissible hearsay. Id. at 626.

[26] On appeal here, the State focuses on the fact that Whitt's first interview occurred before she signed her plea agreement, and that her second came before she was released from jail. However, it ignores that before either interview, Whitt was arrested and charged with two counts of murder. Then she offered her story to authorities. Despite several meetings with detectives in the months after the murders, she provided no information whatsoever. Only upon being arrested and charged did she offer these statements. See Sturgeon v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1173, 1179 (Ind. 1999) (“[T]he prior consistent statement has no relevancy to refute the charge [of recent fabrication] unless the consistent statement was made before the source of the bias, interest, influence or incapacity originated.” (quoting Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 156 (1995))) (alterations in original). Furthermore, there was evidence implicating Whitt in the murders: (1) she drove to all the relevant locations that night; (2) one of the victims was shot in her car; (3) her car was intentionally set on fire; and (4) she later drove Gant and Robinson to Chicago. In light of these facts, we conclude that her motive to fabricate arose before she participated in the interviews. Thus, the interviews were inadmissible hearsay, and the trial court abused its discretion in admitting them.

[27] Nonetheless, the State contends that any error in their admission did not affect Robinson's substantial rights and was therefore harmless. We note that Robinson offers no argument on this issue. Whether an error in the admission of evidence affects a party's substantial rights requires us to consider the probable impact such evidence had on the jury in light of all the other evidence at trial. Setlak, 234 N.E.3d at 219. “The improper admission of evidence is harmless error when the conviction is supported by such substantial independent evidence of guilt as to satisfy the reviewing court that there is no substantial likelihood that the questioned evidence contributed to the conviction.” Id. (quoting Pelissier v. State, 122 N.E.3d 983, 988 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied). The error may also be harmless if the improperly admitted evidence is cumulative of other admitted evidence. Id.

[28] As discussed above, and indeed acknowledged by defense counsel at trial, Whitt's statements in her police interview were cumulative of her testimony at trial. And at trial, she provided a detailed account of the night of the murders and the events afterward, almost all of which included Robinson. Specifically, she testified that she saw Robinson: (1) help move Moore's body from the front seat to the garage and then from the garage to the trunk; (2) restrain Klein while Gant stabbed her repeatedly; and (3) stab Klein. Whitt's friend, Follins, also testified that Robinson personally threatened him more than once after the murders because he knew Whitt had told Follins what happened. Whitt's interview statements were merely cumulative of her detailed and extensive trial testimony. Combined with evidence that Robinson essentially admitted his participation in the murders while lodging threats to Follins, we find that the probable impact on the jury of the erroneously admitted evidence was sufficiently minor as to not affect Robinson's substantial rights. See Bouye, 699 N.E.2d at 626 (finding the improper admission of a probable cause affidavit was harmless error because its content “was merely duplicative of properly admitted evidence”); see also Stevens v. State, No. 22A-CR-2377, 2023 WL 4282521, at *3 (Ind. Ct. App. June 30, 2023) (finding the improper admission of a forensic interview was harmless because “[d]uring the interview, [the declarant] provided much of the same information to which she testified before the jury”) (mem.), trans. denied.

Conclusion

[29] We find the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Whitt's police interviews into evidence. However, because that error was harmless, we affirm.

[30] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In this opinion, we will refer to Gregory Robinson as “Robinson” and to Christopher Robinson as “Christopher.”

2.   It is not clear from the record whether Whitt contacted Follins the night of the murders or some night thereafter.

3.   Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1) (2014) (amended July 1, 2017).

4.   Whitt explained that Christopher was with them at Poinsette Dr., helped move Moore's body into the garage, accompanied the group to Klein's house, and accompanied her and Gant to the location where Moore's body was dumped. However, he was not in the car when Gant shot Moore, and he did not go to Chicago.

5.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-5(a)(2) (2016).

6.   Gant, Christopher, and Klein's daughter did not testify.

7.   While it is not entirely clear from his brief, Robinson seems to argue that defense counsel's cross-examination of Whitt did not imply that she had recently fabricated her testimony or had ulterior motives in so testifying. However, from the record we find that such an allegation was implied by defense counsel's questions. Robinson's attorney emphasized Whitt's failure to provide any information to police until she was arrested and charged with murder. And then, after Whitt provided a statement, she signed a plea agreement which required her to testify against Robinson lest she forfeit her release from jail and the dismissal of the murder charges. Thus, to the extent Robinson argues there was no “express or implied charge that [Whitt] recently fabricated” her testimony “or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying[,]” the record shows otherwise. Evid. R. 801(d)(1)(B).

DeBoer, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.