Jaron Anthony Michael Wells, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Following a jury trial, Jaron Wells was convicted of murder. After pleading guilty to a firearms sentencing enhancement, the trial court sentenced Wells to an aggregate term of seventy years. On appeal, Wells presents two issues for review:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence Facebook messages between Wells and various individuals?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in permitting a handwriting analyst to testify without first being qualified as an expert witness under Ind. Evidence Rule 702?

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Throughout 2023, Wells and his mother, Shanay Hunt, were homeless and often stayed together in motels and abandoned properties throughout Evansville. Wells's relationship with Hunt was “[r]ocky.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 184.

[4] On July 7, 2023, Wells communicated via Facebook with Mark Albini regarding a construction job opportunity, and they agreed to meet for an interview on July 10. Wells, however, never showed for the scheduled interview.

[5] On the morning of Saturday, July 8, 2023, Hunt made the last phone call registered on her phone to her friend Donna Fowler. Hunt and Fowler had known each other for about a year and a half and talked on the phone every day, sometimes up to seven times a day, and often for long periods. Fowler was familiar with Wells's voice, and during that Saturday morning call with Hunt, she heard his voice in the background. At the end of their conversation, Hunt and Fowler agreed to talk later that day. Hunt, however, never called. Fowler tried to contact Wells to inquire about Hunt's whereabouts, but got no response. Fowler “texted [Hunt] on Facebook to see if she was okay,” but never heard back. Transcript Vol. 2 at 136. After a couple days of no contact with Hunt, Fowler reported Hunt as missing.

[6] On July 14, 2023, Hunt's body was found in a state of decomposition in an abandoned house on Harriet Street. From inside the house, police recovered a .45 caliber shell casing on the floor and a phone located on or near Hunt's body. An autopsy revealed that Hunt died from a gunshot wound to the head. A .45 caliber bullet fragment was recovered during the examination.

[7] Around the third week of July 2023, Wells communicated with Olivea Tison through Facebook about wanting to leave Evansville. On July 22, Wells, through Facebook, provided Tison with the address of where he was located and Tison picked him up. As they had discussed in previous Facebook messages, Tison drove Wells to Montana Jolly's house in Carrier Mills, Illinois. Wells had only a clear, plastic bag with him at the time. At Jolly's house, Wells stayed in the living room and slept on the couch. He kept the plastic bag with his belongings near the couch.

[8] In mid-July, Kayleigh Reeves, Wells's sister/Hunt's daughter, learned of Hunt's death through a family member on Facebook. At the end of the month, police contacted Reeves looking for Wells and she told them that she had not had contact with Wells in eight or nine years. Five minutes after she finished speaking with the police, Reeves received a Facebook message from Wells that referenced an article from a local news station about Hunt having been found dead in an abandoned house. Wells told Reeves that he had not seen Hunt in about a month.

[9] Throughout the conversation that ensued through Facebook messages, Reeves had no doubt that she was communicating with Wells. She noted that the Facebook profile identified the individual as “Jay Wells” and she knew that Wells went by the name “Jay.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 182, 183. She also recognized pictures of people she knew to be related to Wells under that Facebook profile and that the language and content of the statuses posted under that Facebook profile reflected that the individual behind the account was Wells. She noted that during their Facebook conversation, Wells referenced things that only he would know, such as where she was living and information about Hunt's previous relationships. Reeves found it strange when Wells told her that he was living in Texas because she had observed recent activity on Wells's Facebook account indicating he was still in Evansville. Wells asked Reeves to give him her number, and she told him to just call her through Facebook. Thereafter, Reeves was blocked from viewing Wells's Facebook account. She took screenshots of her entire Facebook conversation with Wells.

[10] As part of the investigation into Hunt's death, detectives secured two search warrants to obtain records pertaining to the Jay Wells's Facebook account. The Facebook records revealed that on July 28, 2023, the day the coroner identified Hunt as the deceased person found in the Harriet Street house and the information was published by local news stations, Wells “unfriended” Hunt on Facebook. Transcript Vol. 3 at 49; State's Exhibit 19(a).

[11] Also included in the Facebook records were messages between Wells and various individuals on a variety of matters. The Facebook messages were introduced by the State during its case-in-chief. State's Exhibit 10(a) includes messages between Wells and Gene Pyke about Pyke having a .45 Glock and a .38 Special for sale. State's Exhibit 10(b) contains the messages between Wells and Ron Fowler in which Fowler inquired on behalf of his mother Donna about Hunt's well-being. State's Exhibit 10(c) includes messages between Wells and Albini about a potential job and an interview. State's Exhibits 10(d) and 19(c) contain messages between Wells and Tison planning for Wells to leave Evansville and pinpointing Wells location so Tison could pick him up. State's Exhibit 19(b) is a Facebook message from Mesha Fox to Wells expressing condolences and Wells responding “what happened?!” State's Exhibit 12 includes the screenshots Reeves took of the Facebook conversation she had with Wells.

[12] During the investigation, law enforcement also searched a storage unit, wherein they discovered a box for a Glock handgun. They also found paperwork and medication in Hunt's name, a receipt from Best Value Inn with Wells's name, and a handwritten letter signed “Jay.” Transcript Vol. 3 at 157; Exhibit 21. Nothing within the storage unit bore the name of anyone other than Wells or Hunt.

[13] Law enforcement also conducted a search at Jolly's home in Illinois, where Wells was staying after he left Evansville. During the search, within Wells's bag of clothes that was located near the couch in the living room, officers found a blue, pocket-sized notebook. In the notebook there were various handwritten notes about wilderness survival and one that stated: “I don't know what came over me Saturday” and “I just ruined my whole fu*cking life like an idiot and to top it all off now I don't have either parent alive, [Reeves] is going to be so devastated and disgusted with me.”¹ Transcript Vol. 2 at 18. The others who resided in the home at the time denied that the notebook was theirs.

[14] On September 11, 2023, Wells was interviewed by police. He confirmed that he and Hunt had been staying in motels and abandoned homes and that around July 4, 2023, he had become “angry” with Hunt for derogatory comments she made about his father. Transcript Vol. 3 at 53. He told investigators that he did not attend Hunt's funeral. He also admitted that in June 2023, he purchased a Glock handgun and ammunition for $600 and that in mid-July 2023, he sold the gun to Christopher Hill for $100.² This information was corroborated by Facebook messages taken from Wells's Facebook account. Wells also confirmed that he received a message from Mesha Fox, on July 28, 2023, and that she offered condolences for Hunt's death. When confronted about why Facebook messages from the first Facebook search warrant return were missing from the second Facebook search warrant return,³ Wells told detectives that he had archived those messages. When shown the screenshots of his conversation with Reeves, Wells acknowledged them and said they should be in his Facebook archives.

[15] After Wells was apprehended, law enforcement seized his cell phone and had a forensic examiner perform a high-tech extraction of its contents. The extraction report revealed that after Hunt's body was identified, there was an increased search pattern on Wells's phone for Evansville Watch and 14 News. The report also showed over a hundred searches between July 27 and August 14, 2023, regarding 14 News, cities in Tennessee, and MyCase, which is a website provided by the State of Indiana that shows, among other things, active warrants.

[16] On September 11, 2023, the State charged Wells with the murder of Hunt. On February 15, 2025, the State added a firearm sentencing enhancement. A jury trial was held February 24-26, 2025, and resulted in a mistrial. Prior to the second trial, the court held a hearing regarding whether the State would be permitted to admit the testimony of the Theresa Roy, a handwriting analyst. At the hearing, Roy testified that she was a retired investigative technician for the Evansville Police Department and that she began training as a handwriting analyst in 1996. She outlined her training and explained the process of handwriting analysis, stating that such is regarded as a science and noting that her analysis follows defined standards and is informed by her perceptions and experience. The State argued that Roy was permitted to testify as a lay witness under Evid. R. 701. Wells argued that handwriting analysis is scientific field of study and that Roy must therefore be qualified as an expert under Evid. R. 702 before she could testify. The trial court agreed with the State and ruled that Roy would be permitted to testify as a lay witness about her “rationally based perceptions.” Supplemental Transcript at 25. The court further ruled, however, that the State would not be permitted to expressly qualify Roy as a skilled witness in front of the jury.

[17] A second jury trial was held July 21-24, 2025. During its case-in-chief, the State sought to admit Facebook messages between Wells and various individuals into evidence. Wells objected, in part, on grounds that the State failed to properly authenticate them. Specifically, Wells objected to State's Exhibits 10(a)-(d), 12, and 19(a)-(c). The trial court overruled his objections and admitted the Facebook messages into evidence.

[18] The State also called Roy as a witness. Roy explained how she compared the handwritten notes in the notebook with a copy of the letter signed “Jay” found in the storage unit. Transcript Vol. 3 at 142. Both documents used in the comparison contained cursive writing. She identified approximately fifteen to eighteen unique matching characteristics that she described as substantial based on her experience. Roy stated that in her opinion, it was “very probable” the handwriting in both documents was done by the same person. Transcript Vol. 3 at 145.

[19] At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury found Wells guilty of murder. Wells then pled guilty to the firearms enhancement. On September 16, 2025, the trial court sentenced Wells to an aggregate term of seventy years. Wells now appeals. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Discussion & Decision

Standard of Review

[20] The decision to admit or exclude evidence falls within the trial court's discretion and is reviewed for an abuse of that discretion. Dycus v. State, 108 N.E.3d 301, 303 (Ind. 2018). A ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence warrants reversal only if the decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. Furthermore, a claim that the trial court erred in the admission or exclusion of evidence will not prevail on appeal unless the error affects the substantial rights of the defendant. Nicholson v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1096, 1099 (Ind. 2012).

1. Authentication

[21] Wells argues that the State failed to lay a sufficient foundation for admission of Facebook messages. Specifically, he contends that the State failed to adequately authenticate that the Facebook account identified as “Jay Wells” was used solely by Wells and that the messages between the “Jay Wells” account and various individuals were authored by such individuals. The trial court admitted State's Exhibits 10(a)-(d), 12, and 19(a)-(c) over Wells's objection.

[22] “To lay a foundation for the admission of evidence, the proponent of the evidence must show that it has been authenticated.” Hape v. State, 903 N.E.2d 977, 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. Evid. R. 901(a) provides that “[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Absolute proof of authenticity is not required. M.T.V. v. State, 66 N.E.3d 960, 963 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. Rather, the proponent of the evidence must establish only a reasonable probability that the evidence is what it is claimed to be and may use direct or circumstantial evidence to do so. Pavlovich v. State, 6 N.E.3d 969, 976 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. Once this reasonable probability is shown, any inconclusiveness of the evidence's connection with the events at issue goes to evidential weight, not admissibility. Fry v. State, 885 N.E.2d 742, 748 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.

[23] “Letters and words set down by electronic recording and other forms of data compilation are included within Rule 901(a).” Wilson v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1264, 1268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. Moreover, Evid. R. 901(b) provides a non-exhaustive list of evidence that satisfies the authentication requirement. One example is where, taken together with all the circumstances, the evidence has distinctive characteristics in appearance, contents, or substance. Evid. R. 901(b)(4).

[24] In Wilson, we addressed whether messages sent through a Twitter social media account were properly authenticated as having been authored by the defendant. During trial, a witness testified that she often communicated with the defendant on Twitter and had general knowledge of the account by its “@Nell_FearNoMan” header. 30 N.E.3d at 1268-69. The contents of the account included pictures depicting the defendant holding guns that matched the description of those used in the crime. Id. at 1269. Moreover, there was testimony that the defendant was affiliated with two gangs, and the @Nell_FearNoMan Twitter account frequently used terms referring to those gangs, showing that the author of the messages was affiliated with them. Id. We concluded that “taken together, the witness testimony identifying the Twitter account as belonging to [the defendant] and the content posted on the account, including pictures and gang references, are more than sufficient to authenticate the Twitter posts as being authored by Wilson.” Id.

[25] In M.T.V., the defendant admitted in an interview with law enforcement officers to having had Facebook conversations with B.E. in which B.E. threatened to shoot up the school on a certain date. The Facebook records introduced at the fact-finding hearing contained the content to which M.T.V. admitted and thus lead this court to find that the Facebook records had distinctive characteristics in content. M.T.V., 66 N.E.3d at 963. The court therefore concluded that the Facebook records were properly authenticated as the State's evidence collectively established the requisite probability that the Facebook records corresponded to M.T.V.’s and B.E.’s Facebook accounts and that M.T.V. and B.E. authored the conversations therein.

[26] Wells challenges admission of State's Exhibit 12, the screenshots of the Facebook messages exchanged between Reeves and Wells. At trial, Reeves testified and identified the screenshots presented by the State as her conversation with Wells through Facebook. She explained that although she had not communicated with Wells in many years, she had periodically monitored Wells's Facebook account to keep track of him. She was able to identify his Facebook account by the account name “Jay Wells,” which she knew to be a name Wells used. She also recognized photographs or people she knew to be related to Wells and discerned that the status updates reflected Wells was the owner of the account. Further, Wells provided his identity through the content of the conversation when he relayed information only he would know, such as where Reeves was living and about Hunt's previous relationships. Taken together, these circumstances left Reeves with no doubt that she was communicating with Wells through his Facebook account. And, indeed, when Wells was shown the screenshots of the conversation with Reeves, he acknowledged the conversation and stated that the messages should be in his Facebook archives. The State sufficiently authenticated the messages contained in State's Exhibit 12.

[27] Wells also challenges the admission of Facebook messages between Wells and various other individuals found in State's Exhibits 10(a)-(d) and 19(a)-(c). In addition to Reeves, at least one other witness testified that Wells was known as “Jay.” Further confirming that Wells was the owner of the subject account, Tison testified that she communicated with Wells through the Jay Wells Facebook account and that she was able to locate Wells based on communications she received through those Facebook messages. Tison also transported Wells to Jolly's home in Illinois, which is consistent with the substance of the messages she exchanged with Wells through Facebook. We also note that information contained in other Facebook messages associated with that same account was either admitted to by Wells during his statement to police or consistent with events that occurred. Clearly, the State presented evidence describing distinctive characteristics that connected Wells to the challenged Facebook messages. Compare Wilson and M.T.V., supra, with Richardson v. State, 79 N.E.3d 958, 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (holding single Facebook message from murder victim was not properly authenticated where there was “no evidence describing distinctive characteristics that could connect the particular statement to [the victim], nor ․ any other indicia of reliability”). Further, the extraction of Wells's phone revealed no user or parent accounts belonging to anyone other than Wells. Collectively, the evidence presented by the State established a reasonable probability that the Facebook messages were what the State claimed them to be, i.e., Facebook messages between Wells and various individuals. Having been properly authenticated, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence.

2. Opinion Testimony of Handwriting Analyst

[28] Wells argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted Roy to testify as a skilled witness about an expert matter.⁴ “The Indiana Rules of Evidence contain two rules for opinion testimony—lay witness opinions under Rule 701 and expert witness opinions under Rule 702.” Wilburn v. State, 177 N.E.3d 805, 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). “A ‘skilled witness’ is a person with a degree of knowledge short of that sufficient to be declared an expert under Evid. R. 702, but somewhat beyond that possessed by the ordinary jurors.” Jones v. State, 957 N.E.2d 1033, 1040 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (internal quotation omitted). Evid. R. 701 “encompasses both ordinary lay witness opinions and skilled witness opinions. The difference between skilled witnesses and ordinary lay witnesses is their degree of knowledge concerning the subject of their testimony.” Wilburn, 177 N.E.3d at 811. The testimony of a skilled witness “is not a matter of ‘scientific principles’ governed by Indiana Evidence Rule 702(b); rather, it is a matter of the observations of persons with specialized knowledge.” Jones, 957 N.E.2d at 1040 (internal quotation omitted).

[29] “Any witness ‘not testifying as an expert’—whether an ordinary lay witness or a skilled witness—may testify ‘in the form of an opinion” ’ based on their perception and if the testimony is helpful to an understanding of the witness's testimony or determination of a fact at issue. Satterfield v. State, 33 N.E.3d 344, 352 (Ind. 2015) (citing Evid. R. 701). Like a lay witness, a skilled witness testifies from her perceptions alone, “not necessarily established scientific principles.” Id. at 353. Moreover, a skilled witness “possess[es] knowledge beyond that of the average juror” that allows the skilled witness “to perceive more information from the same set of facts and circumstances than an unskilled witness would.” Id. Because a skilled witness is testifying from their observations, the testimony is not governed by Evid. R. 702(b). Jones, 957 N.E.2d at 1040 (citing Farrell v. Littell, 790 N.E.2d 612, 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). “Skilled witness testimony generally needs only rise to a relatively low bar in order to be admissible[.]” Hawkins v. State, 884 N.E.2d 939, 945 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.

[30] Roy's testimony fits within the skilled witness category because her analysis of the handwriting samples was based on her perceptions as a trained analyst and provided jurors with a greater understanding of the evidence. Roy explained that she examines two documents and identifies idiosyncratic patterns present in both writings and observes how specific letters are formed. She then classifies and assesses matching characteristics. Thus, Roy had to make her own perceptions from the writing samples and then apply her training, knowledge, and experience to form her opinion that it was very probable that the writer of the two compared documents was the same.

[31] Our conclusion is supported by this court's decision in Bush v. State, 243 N.E.3d 405, 415 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), wherein we held that a handwriting analyst could testify as a skilled witness based upon “sufficient familiarity with the standard of comparison,” which involved comparing the handwritten portions of the defendant's alibi statement with a sample provided by the defendant. Similarly, Roy was asked to compare two sample writings and form an opinion based on her training and experience. Further, we note that the training received by the analyst in Bush was similar to the training Roy had received.⁵

[32] In sum, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Roy to testify as a lay witness with specialized knowledge under Evid. R. 701.

[33] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State set out the contents of the handwritten notes during its opening statement. Although the notebook was admitted into evidence during trial, the State did not publish the contents at that time.

2.   In August 2023, Hill sold the gun to John Thorton, from whom police recovered the gun. Forensic testing confirmed that the shell casing found at the scene was ejected from this gun, but was inconclusive regarding whether the bullet fragment recovered from Hunt's skull was fired from that same gun.

3.   The messages missing in the second return were messages between Wells and Ron Fowler, Donna's son, in which Ron was checking on Hunt's well-being.

4.   The State argues that Wells has waived this issue for review because it was not adequately preserved at trial. We disagree. Prior to trial, Wells sought to have Roy's testimony excluded because she was not a qualified expert under Evid. R. 702. Following a hearing, the court ruled that Roy would be permitted to testify as a lay witness under Evid. R. 701. At trial, in discussing upcoming witnesses, the State suggested “a hearing outside the presence [of the jury] ․ before we even start so that we're not interrupting anything” and then mentioned that Roy would soon be testifying. Transcript Vol. 3 at 115. Wells's counsel then referenced the trial court's earlier ruling: “And then Ms. Roy is a little dicey because we've had the preliminary hearing outside the presence [of the jury] but so on that particular issue I mean I think the Court's ruling is she can again testify as to her observations and based on her experience what she believes.” Id. In the colloquy that ensued, the court and the parties clarified the court's prior ruling and how it limited Roy's testimony to giving her opinion based on her own personal perceptions. After the jury returned to the courtroom, Roy was the third witness called by the State. It is clear that the court and the State were fully apprised of Wells's position that Roy should not be permitted to testify as a lay witness with specialized knowledge and that she was not properly qualified to testify as an expert witness.

5.   We do not agree with Wells that Bush is at odds with Spencer v. State, 147 N.E.2d 581 (Ind. 1958), wherein the challenged testimony was from a lay witness who was familiar with the defendant's handwriting and not a professional analyst as is the case here.

Altice, Judge.

Vaidik, J. and Foley, J., concur.