Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
JORDAN DONTA WILSON v. State of Indiana
Date: 05-16-2021
Case Number: 20A-CR-01925
Judge: Robert R. Altice, Jr.
Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Plaintiff's Attorney: Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Justin F. Roebel
Supervising Deputy Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
Indianapolis, IN - Criminal defense attorney represented Jordan Donta Wilson with a murder and attempted murder charges.
On January 22, 2019, C.C. purchased a car and early that evening picked up
her "on and off†boyfriend, Christopher Griffin, at Griffin's mother's house.
Transcript Vol. 2 at 128. Griffin was accompanied by Wilson, whom C.C.
recognized from Facebook photographs as Griffin's friend who went by the
name "Yellow.†Id. at 129. Griffin sat in the front passenger seat and Wilson
sat in the rear passenger seat. After stopping at a gas station, they all went back
to C.C.'s home.
[4] While C.C. and Griffin were in C.C.'s bedroom, Wilson stayed in the living
room. Griffin had given Wilson the password to C.C.'s Wi-Fi, and C.C. let
Wilson use a phone charger. Griffin told C.C. that Wilson needed a place to Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 3 of 11
stay, and C.C. told him that Wilson could sleep on the couch that night. At
some point, C.C. left to pick up her nine-year-old daughter and ten-year-old
niece. C.C. was gone for a short time and when she returned, she helped the
girls get ready for bed. Around this time, Griffin asked to use C.C.'s car.
Griffin and Wilson left together and were gone for about an hour. Griffin and
Wilson left a second time when C.C. asked Griffin to buy her donut sticks from
a nearby gas station. While Griffin and Wilson were at the gas station, they
video chatted with C.C. to confirm that Griffin was purchasing what she
wanted.
[5] Minutes later, when Griffin and Wilson returned to the house, C.C. was sitting
on her bed. Griffin walked into the bedroom, smiled, and threw a bag of chips
toward her. C.C. then heard a gunshot and covered her ears. When she looked
up, she saw Wilson pointing a gun at her. The next thing she knew, she was
"laying face down on [her] bed with blood . . . like pouring into [her] mouth.â€
Id. at 142. C.C. did not move because she was afraid Wilson would shoot her
again. After she heard the front door shut, C.C. called 911 and managed to get
to the front door to lock it. Griffin was lying on the floor in her bedroom, and
C.C. told the 911 operator that he had been shot and she thought he was dead.
[6] When police arrived, they found C.C. covered in blood with an obvious injury
near her neck. C.C. told the officers that the shooter was a young, light-skinned
black male with tattoos on his face and hands and who went by the nickname
Yellow. During a protective sweep of the house, the officers located Griffin,
who appeared to be deceased from a gunshot wound to the back of the head, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 4 of 11
lying on the bedroom floor. C.C.'s daughter and niece were found hiding under
blankets in another bedroom in the house.
[7] As officers responded to C.C.'s house, Richard Faulkner, Sr., an officer with
the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department went to look for the suspect.
He parked in the area of the nearby gas station and waited. After a few
minutes, Officer Faulkner observed Wilson—who fit the description of the
suspect provided by C.C.—casually leaning against a light pole across the street
from the gas station and eating donut sticks. When another police car drove by,
the officer observed Wilson straighten up and lean closer to the light pole.
Wilson then walked across the street to the gas station. Officers moved in and
arrested Wilson. Wilson had donut sticks on him and according to one officer,
Wilson appeared sweaty and out of breath like he had recently been running.
During a pat-down search, officers found a bag of seven unfired bullets in
Wilson's pocket.
[8] An autopsy revealed that Griffin suffered a fatal gunshot wound behind his
right ear. The bullet severely fractured his skull and lodged in his brain. C.C.
suffered a single gunshot wound that injured her neck, cheek, and wrist. She
remained in the hospital for approximately four days.
[9] On January 24, 2019, the State charged Wilson with murder, attempted
murder, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. A jury
trial was held March 2-4, 2020. At trial, C.C. testified that she saw Wilson
pointing the gun at her at the time of the shooting. Several witnesses, including Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 5 of 11
C.C. and Griffin's mother and brother, identified Wilson as Griffin's
companion on the day of the shooting. The State also presented evidence that
Wilson's phone connected to C.C.'s Wi-Fi on the evening in question and of
footprints in her car that were consistent with the shoes Wilson was wearing.
The bullets found in Wilson's pocket were of the same caliber, albeit multiple
brands, as the two spent casings found at the scene of the shooting.
[10] During the trial, Detective Chris Edwards testified that he created a photo array
for C.C. to make her initial identification. In response to the deputy
prosecutor's question as to how he selected the photographs for the photo array,
Detective Edwards stated that he used "a computer system with – basically like
mugshots of everybody whose [sic] been arrested in Marion County.â€
Transcript Vol. 3 at 96. Defense counsel immediately objected. Following a
short sidebar conversation, the trial court struck Detective Edwards's response
and admonished the jury not to consider it:
I show the last comment made by Detective Edwards, the last
statement made by him about mugshots and in Marion County,
Indianapolis is stricken from the record. Ladies and gentlemen
of the jury, you are not to consider that. That is stricken from the
record.
Id. at 97. Outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel requested a mistrial,
claiming that Detective Edwards's testimony was an "evidentiary harpoonâ€
that placed him in "a position of grave peril.†Id. at 98, 97. He also disagreed
with the State's argument that Detective Edwards's use of the term "mugshotâ€
was inadvertent and that the situation could be rehabilitated. Id. at 100. The Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 6 of 11
trial court denied the motion for mistrial. Detective Edwards then testified that
he has access to several databases as sources for photographs to make a photo
array, including the bureau of motor vehicles. Upon being shown the photo
array, C.C. identified Wilson as the person who shot her.1
Reports on the
contents of C.C.'s and Griffin's cell phones showed that the video chat from the
gas station occurred approximately ten minutes before the 911 call was made
from C.C.'s phone at approximately 9:32 p.m. C.C. testified that the shooting
occurred immediately after Griffin and Wilson had returned.
[11] At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury found Wilson guilty as charged.
After the guilty verdict, the trial court granted the State's request that the
firearms charge be dismissed. On June 22, 2020, the trial court sentenced
Wilson to consecutive terms of sixty years for murder and thirty years for
attempted murder. On October 9, 2020, Wilson was granted permission to
pursue a belated appeal. Additional facts will be provided, as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
1. Mistrial
[12] The grant or denial of a motion for mistrial rests within the sound discretion of
the trial court and is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Brittain v. State, 68
N.E.3d 611, 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. We afford the trial court
1 Griffin's mother and brother also identified Wilson from a photo array as the individual accompanying
Griffin that evening.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 7 of 11
great deference on appeal because the trial court is in the best position to
evaluate the relevant circumstances of an event and its impact on the jury. Id.
at 620. The grant of a mistrial is an extreme remedy that should be used only
when no other curative measure will rectify the situation. Kemper v. State, 35
N.E.3d 306, 309 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. In reviewing the denial of a
motion for a mistrial, the defendant must demonstrate that the conduct
complained of was both in error and had a probable persuasive effect on the
jury's decision. Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 821, 825 (Ind. 2002). More
specifically, the appellant must establish that the questioned conduct was so
prejudicial and inflammatory that he was placed in a position of grave peril to
which he should not have been subjected. Gregory v. State, 540 N.E.2d 585, 589
(Ind. 1989).
[13] Wilson argues that a mistrial was warranted because Detective Edwards's
testimony that he created the photo array using "mugshots of everybody whose
[sic] been arrested in Marion County†informed the jury that Wilson had
previously been arrested, thereby inviting the jury to draw the forbidden
inference. Transcript Vol. 3 at 96. He claims that such testimony was
intentionally injected into the trial in that there was no legitimate purpose to ask
about the source of the photographs in the array and the testimony was
provided by an experienced police officer.
[14] In Coleman v. State, 490 N.E.2d 325 (Ind. 1986), our Supreme Court was
presented with similar circumstances. In that case, a veteran police officer
testified that in creating a photographic array, he "pulled the mugshots—I'm Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 8 of 11
sorry, the police photographs out and gave each [victim] a group of
photographs.†Id. at 327. The Supreme Court noted that "the use of the term
mug shot in testimony may be prejudicial to the defendant. However, the mere
mention of the term mug shot is not reversible error per se. Reversal is not
required if the reference is unintentional or evidence of guilt is strong.†Id. at
328. With regard to the specific instance, the Court determined that the
testimony, although made by an experienced police officer, was inadvertent.
The Court also determined that use of the term mugshot "did not refer to any
particular mug shot of the defendant, but referred to the general category of
photos used in a photographic array.†Id. Finally, the Court found that there
was substantial evidence of the defendant's guilt. Under these circumstances,
the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
defendant's motion for mistrial.
[15] The same result follows here. First, Detective Edwards did not explicitly state
that Wilson's photograph was obtained from the mugshot database. Second,
even though Detective Edwards referred to mugshots and arrests, his testimony
created the same risk of prejudice that was addressed in Coleman. Third, that
Detective Edwards did not correct his misstatement is not indicative of his
intent or lack thereof as defense counsel immediately objected before Detective
Edwards could reflect upon his testimony and perhaps attempt to correct his
misstatement. In any event, the trial court was in the best position to determine
whether the evidence was intentionally or inadvertently injected into the trial.
See Greenlee v. State, 655 N.E.2d 488, 490 (Ind. 1995) (whether challenged Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 9 of 11
testimony was intentionally injected into the trial is but one factor that is
relevant in deciding whether reference to prior acts warrants a mistrial).
[16] Finally, as in Coleman, here, there is substantial evidence of Wilson's guilt.
C.C. identified Wilson as the person she saw pointing a gun at her just before
she was shot. The next thing she knew, she was lying face down on her bed
with blood pouring into her mouth. Other witnesses identified Wilson as
Griffin's companion that evening. Wilson's cell phone connected to C.C.'s WiFi the evening of the shooting and shoe prints in C.C.'s car were consistent with
shoes worn by Wilson. Not ten minutes before Griffin and C.C. were shot,
C.C. was video chatting with Griffin and Wilson while they were at a gas
station a few blocks from C.C.'s house picking up snacks. In the video, Wilson
was holding the donut sticks requested by C.C. and when he was arrested
shortly after the shooting, he was eating donut sticks.
[17] Moreover, we find that any peril was immediately addressed when the court
strongly admonished the jury. See Lehman v. State, 777 N.E.2d 69, 72 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2002) ("[r]eversible error is seldom found when the trial court has
admonished the jury to disregard a statement made during the proceedings,
because a timely and accurate admonition to the jury is presumed to sufficiently
protect a defendant's rights and remove any error created by the objectionable
statementâ€). We disagree with Wilson that the court's admonition, in which
the trial court repeated the testimony being stricken, amounted to a "drumbeat Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 10 of 11
repetition†of the improper testimony. Appellant's Brief at 21. The trial court
simply identified the precise testimony that the jury was to disregard.2
[18] Wilson has not shown that the passing reference to mugshots and arrests placed
him in great peril. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his
motion for mistrial.
2. Sufficiency
[19] Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well settled.
We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting
the conviction. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not
assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence, and we will affirm unless
no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. It is not necessary that the evidence overcome every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence; rather, the evidence will be found sufficient
if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the conviction. Id.
at 147. "The uncorroborated testimony of one witness, even if it is the victim,
2 Additionally, we note that the jurors received a specific instruction at the outset of trial not to consider
stricken evidence:
During the trial the court may rule that certain questions may not be answered and/or that
certain exhibits may not be allowed into evidence. You must not concern yourselves with the
reasons for the rulings. The court's rulings are strictly controlled by law. Occasionally, the
court may strike evidence from the record after you have already seen or heard it. You must not
consider such evidence in making your decision.
Transcript Vol. 2 at 103-04. Jurors are presumed to follow a trial court's instructions. Ward v. State, 138
N.E.2d 268, 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 11 of 11
is sufficient to sustain a conviction.†Whitener v. State, 982 N.E.2d 439, 444
(Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
[20] Wilson argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions because
the jury's verdicts are based on his mere presence at the scene. Wilson claims
that there is no evidence that he fired the gun that killed Griffin and seriously
wounded C.C. and given the fact that there is "no discernable reason for the
shooting, the jury easily could have found that another person was present but
not seen by C.C. and that person may have been the shooter.†Appellant's Brief
at 25. We will not indulge Wilson's blatant request to reweigh the evidence and
judge the credibility of witnesses. C.C. testified that she heard a gunshot and
looked up and saw Wilson pointing a gun at her. The next thing she knew, she
was lying face down on her bed with blood pouring into her mouth. When
police responded to her 911 call, she immediately identified Wilson as the
shooter and provided a physical description. A short time later, while still at
the hospital, C.C. identified Wilson from a photographic array. C.C.'s
testimony is sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded that
Wilson murdered Griffin and then shot C.C.
Outcome:
Judgment affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of JORDAN DONTA WILSON v. State of Indiana?
The outcome was: Judgment affirmed
Which court heard JORDAN DONTA WILSON v. State of Indiana?
This case was heard in COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, IN. The presiding judge was Robert R. Altice, Jr..
Who were the attorneys in JORDAN DONTA WILSON v. State of Indiana?
Plaintiff's attorney: Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Justin F. Roebel
Supervising Deputy Attorney. Defendant's attorney: Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was JORDAN DONTA WILSON v. State of Indiana decided?
This case was decided on May 16, 2021.
Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
On January 22, 2019, C.C. purchased a car and early that evening picked up
her "on and off†boyfriend, Christopher Griffin, at Griffin's mother's house.
Transcript Vol. 2 at 128. Griffin was accompanied by Wilson, whom C.C.
recognized from Facebook photographs as Griffin's friend who went by the
name "Yellow.†Id. at 129. Griffin sat in the front passenger seat and Wilson
sat in the rear passenger seat. After stopping at a gas station, they all went back
to C.C.'s home.
[4] While C.C. and Griffin were in C.C.'s bedroom, Wilson stayed in the living
room. Griffin had given Wilson the password to C.C.'s Wi-Fi, and C.C. let
Wilson use a phone charger. Griffin told C.C. that Wilson needed a place to Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 3 of 11
stay, and C.C. told him that Wilson could sleep on the couch that night. At
some point, C.C. left to pick up her nine-year-old daughter and ten-year-old
niece. C.C. was gone for a short time and when she returned, she helped the
girls get ready for bed. Around this time, Griffin asked to use C.C.'s car.
Griffin and Wilson left together and were gone for about an hour. Griffin and
Wilson left a second time when C.C. asked Griffin to buy her donut sticks from
a nearby gas station. While Griffin and Wilson were at the gas station, they
video chatted with C.C. to confirm that Griffin was purchasing what she
wanted.
[5] Minutes later, when Griffin and Wilson returned to the house, C.C. was sitting
on her bed. Griffin walked into the bedroom, smiled, and threw a bag of chips
toward her. C.C. then heard a gunshot and covered her ears. When she looked
up, she saw Wilson pointing a gun at her. The next thing she knew, she was
"laying face down on [her] bed with blood . . . like pouring into [her] mouth.â€
Id. at 142. C.C. did not move because she was afraid Wilson would shoot her
again. After she heard the front door shut, C.C. called 911 and managed to get
to the front door to lock it. Griffin was lying on the floor in her bedroom, and
C.C. told the 911 operator that he had been shot and she thought he was dead.
[6] When police arrived, they found C.C. covered in blood with an obvious injury
near her neck. C.C. told the officers that the shooter was a young, light-skinned
black male with tattoos on his face and hands and who went by the nickname
Yellow. During a protective sweep of the house, the officers located Griffin,
who appeared to be deceased from a gunshot wound to the back of the head, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 4 of 11
lying on the bedroom floor. C.C.'s daughter and niece were found hiding under
blankets in another bedroom in the house.
[7] As officers responded to C.C.'s house, Richard Faulkner, Sr., an officer with
the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department went to look for the suspect.
He parked in the area of the nearby gas station and waited. After a few
minutes, Officer Faulkner observed Wilson—who fit the description of the
suspect provided by C.C.—casually leaning against a light pole across the street
from the gas station and eating donut sticks. When another police car drove by,
the officer observed Wilson straighten up and lean closer to the light pole.
Wilson then walked across the street to the gas station. Officers moved in and
arrested Wilson. Wilson had donut sticks on him and according to one officer,
Wilson appeared sweaty and out of breath like he had recently been running.
During a pat-down search, officers found a bag of seven unfired bullets in
Wilson's pocket.
[8] An autopsy revealed that Griffin suffered a fatal gunshot wound behind his
right ear. The bullet severely fractured his skull and lodged in his brain. C.C.
suffered a single gunshot wound that injured her neck, cheek, and wrist. She
remained in the hospital for approximately four days.
[9] On January 24, 2019, the State charged Wilson with murder, attempted
murder, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. A jury
trial was held March 2-4, 2020. At trial, C.C. testified that she saw Wilson
pointing the gun at her at the time of the shooting. Several witnesses, including Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 5 of 11
C.C. and Griffin's mother and brother, identified Wilson as Griffin's
companion on the day of the shooting. The State also presented evidence that
Wilson's phone connected to C.C.'s Wi-Fi on the evening in question and of
footprints in her car that were consistent with the shoes Wilson was wearing.
The bullets found in Wilson's pocket were of the same caliber, albeit multiple
brands, as the two spent casings found at the scene of the shooting.
[10] During the trial, Detective Chris Edwards testified that he created a photo array
for C.C. to make her initial identification. In response to the deputy
prosecutor's question as to how he selected the photographs for the photo array,
Detective Edwards stated that he used "a computer system with – basically like
mugshots of everybody whose [sic] been arrested in Marion County.â€
Transcript Vol. 3 at 96. Defense counsel immediately objected. Following a
short sidebar conversation, the trial court struck Detective Edwards's response
and admonished the jury not to consider it:
I show the last comment made by Detective Edwards, the last
statement made by him about mugshots and in Marion County,
Indianapolis is stricken from the record. Ladies and gentlemen
of the jury, you are not to consider that. That is stricken from the
record.
Id. at 97. Outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel requested a mistrial,
claiming that Detective Edwards's testimony was an "evidentiary harpoonâ€
that placed him in "a position of grave peril.†Id. at 98, 97. He also disagreed
with the State's argument that Detective Edwards's use of the term "mugshotâ€
was inadvertent and that the situation could be rehabilitated. Id. at 100. The Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 6 of 11
trial court denied the motion for mistrial. Detective Edwards then testified that
he has access to several databases as sources for photographs to make a photo
array, including the bureau of motor vehicles. Upon being shown the photo
array, C.C. identified Wilson as the person who shot her.1
Reports on the
contents of C.C.'s and Griffin's cell phones showed that the video chat from the
gas station occurred approximately ten minutes before the 911 call was made
from C.C.'s phone at approximately 9:32 p.m. C.C. testified that the shooting
occurred immediately after Griffin and Wilson had returned.
[11] At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury found Wilson guilty as charged.
After the guilty verdict, the trial court granted the State's request that the
firearms charge be dismissed. On June 22, 2020, the trial court sentenced
Wilson to consecutive terms of sixty years for murder and thirty years for
attempted murder. On October 9, 2020, Wilson was granted permission to
pursue a belated appeal. Additional facts will be provided, as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
1. Mistrial
[12] The grant or denial of a motion for mistrial rests within the sound discretion of
the trial court and is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Brittain v. State, 68
N.E.3d 611, 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. We afford the trial court
1 Griffin's mother and brother also identified Wilson from a photo array as the individual accompanying
Griffin that evening.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 7 of 11
great deference on appeal because the trial court is in the best position to
evaluate the relevant circumstances of an event and its impact on the jury. Id.
at 620. The grant of a mistrial is an extreme remedy that should be used only
when no other curative measure will rectify the situation. Kemper v. State, 35
N.E.3d 306, 309 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. In reviewing the denial of a
motion for a mistrial, the defendant must demonstrate that the conduct
complained of was both in error and had a probable persuasive effect on the
jury's decision. Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 821, 825 (Ind. 2002). More
specifically, the appellant must establish that the questioned conduct was so
prejudicial and inflammatory that he was placed in a position of grave peril to
which he should not have been subjected. Gregory v. State, 540 N.E.2d 585, 589
(Ind. 1989).
[13] Wilson argues that a mistrial was warranted because Detective Edwards's
testimony that he created the photo array using "mugshots of everybody whose
[sic] been arrested in Marion County†informed the jury that Wilson had
previously been arrested, thereby inviting the jury to draw the forbidden
inference. Transcript Vol. 3 at 96. He claims that such testimony was
intentionally injected into the trial in that there was no legitimate purpose to ask
about the source of the photographs in the array and the testimony was
provided by an experienced police officer.
[14] In Coleman v. State, 490 N.E.2d 325 (Ind. 1986), our Supreme Court was
presented with similar circumstances. In that case, a veteran police officer
testified that in creating a photographic array, he "pulled the mugshots—I'm Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 8 of 11
sorry, the police photographs out and gave each [victim] a group of
photographs.†Id. at 327. The Supreme Court noted that "the use of the term
mug shot in testimony may be prejudicial to the defendant. However, the mere
mention of the term mug shot is not reversible error per se. Reversal is not
required if the reference is unintentional or evidence of guilt is strong.†Id. at
328. With regard to the specific instance, the Court determined that the
testimony, although made by an experienced police officer, was inadvertent.
The Court also determined that use of the term mugshot "did not refer to any
particular mug shot of the defendant, but referred to the general category of
photos used in a photographic array.†Id. Finally, the Court found that there
was substantial evidence of the defendant's guilt. Under these circumstances,
the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
defendant's motion for mistrial.
[15] The same result follows here. First, Detective Edwards did not explicitly state
that Wilson's photograph was obtained from the mugshot database. Second,
even though Detective Edwards referred to mugshots and arrests, his testimony
created the same risk of prejudice that was addressed in Coleman. Third, that
Detective Edwards did not correct his misstatement is not indicative of his
intent or lack thereof as defense counsel immediately objected before Detective
Edwards could reflect upon his testimony and perhaps attempt to correct his
misstatement. In any event, the trial court was in the best position to determine
whether the evidence was intentionally or inadvertently injected into the trial.
See Greenlee v. State, 655 N.E.2d 488, 490 (Ind. 1995) (whether challenged Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 9 of 11
testimony was intentionally injected into the trial is but one factor that is
relevant in deciding whether reference to prior acts warrants a mistrial).
[16] Finally, as in Coleman, here, there is substantial evidence of Wilson's guilt.
C.C. identified Wilson as the person she saw pointing a gun at her just before
she was shot. The next thing she knew, she was lying face down on her bed
with blood pouring into her mouth. Other witnesses identified Wilson as
Griffin's companion that evening. Wilson's cell phone connected to C.C.'s WiFi the evening of the shooting and shoe prints in C.C.'s car were consistent with
shoes worn by Wilson. Not ten minutes before Griffin and C.C. were shot,
C.C. was video chatting with Griffin and Wilson while they were at a gas
station a few blocks from C.C.'s house picking up snacks. In the video, Wilson
was holding the donut sticks requested by C.C. and when he was arrested
shortly after the shooting, he was eating donut sticks.
[17] Moreover, we find that any peril was immediately addressed when the court
strongly admonished the jury. See Lehman v. State, 777 N.E.2d 69, 72 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2002) ("[r]eversible error is seldom found when the trial court has
admonished the jury to disregard a statement made during the proceedings,
because a timely and accurate admonition to the jury is presumed to sufficiently
protect a defendant's rights and remove any error created by the objectionable
statementâ€). We disagree with Wilson that the court's admonition, in which
the trial court repeated the testimony being stricken, amounted to a "drumbeat Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 10 of 11
repetition†of the improper testimony. Appellant's Brief at 21. The trial court
simply identified the precise testimony that the jury was to disregard.2
[18] Wilson has not shown that the passing reference to mugshots and arrests placed
him in great peril. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his
motion for mistrial.
2. Sufficiency
[19] Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well settled.
We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting
the conviction. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not
assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence, and we will affirm unless
no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. It is not necessary that the evidence overcome every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence; rather, the evidence will be found sufficient
if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the conviction. Id.
at 147. "The uncorroborated testimony of one witness, even if it is the victim,
2 Additionally, we note that the jurors received a specific instruction at the outset of trial not to consider
stricken evidence:
During the trial the court may rule that certain questions may not be answered and/or that
certain exhibits may not be allowed into evidence. You must not concern yourselves with the
reasons for the rulings. The court's rulings are strictly controlled by law. Occasionally, the
court may strike evidence from the record after you have already seen or heard it. You must not
consider such evidence in making your decision.
Transcript Vol. 2 at 103-04. Jurors are presumed to follow a trial court's instructions. Ward v. State, 138
N.E.2d 268, 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 11 of 11
is sufficient to sustain a conviction.†Whitener v. State, 982 N.E.2d 439, 444
(Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
[20] Wilson argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions because
the jury's verdicts are based on his mere presence at the scene. Wilson claims
that there is no evidence that he fired the gun that killed Griffin and seriously
wounded C.C. and given the fact that there is "no discernable reason for the
shooting, the jury easily could have found that another person was present but
not seen by C.C. and that person may have been the shooter.†Appellant's Brief
at 25. We will not indulge Wilson's blatant request to reweigh the evidence and
judge the credibility of witnesses. C.C. testified that she heard a gunshot and
looked up and saw Wilson pointing a gun at her. The next thing she knew, she
was lying face down on her bed with blood pouring into her mouth. When
police responded to her 911 call, she immediately identified Wilson as the
shooter and provided a physical description. A short time later, while still at
the hospital, C.C. identified Wilson from a photographic array. C.C.'s
testimony is sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded that
Wilson murdered Griffin and then shot C.C.
Indianapolis, IN - Criminal defense attorney represented Jordan Donta Wilson with a murder and attempted murder charges.
On January 22, 2019, C.C. purchased a car and early that evening picked up
her "on and off†boyfriend, Christopher Griffin, at Griffin's mother's house.
Transcript Vol. 2 at 128. Griffin was accompanied by Wilson, whom C.C.
recognized from Facebook photographs as Griffin's friend who went by the
name "Yellow.†Id. at 129. Griffin sat in the front passenger seat and Wilson
sat in the rear passenger seat. After stopping at a gas station, they all went back
to C.C.'s home.
[4] While C.C. and Griffin were in C.C.'s bedroom, Wilson stayed in the living
room. Griffin had given Wilson the password to C.C.'s Wi-Fi, and C.C. let
Wilson use a phone charger. Griffin told C.C. that Wilson needed a place to Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 3 of 11
stay, and C.C. told him that Wilson could sleep on the couch that night. At
some point, C.C. left to pick up her nine-year-old daughter and ten-year-old
niece. C.C. was gone for a short time and when she returned, she helped the
girls get ready for bed. Around this time, Griffin asked to use C.C.'s car.
Griffin and Wilson left together and were gone for about an hour. Griffin and
Wilson left a second time when C.C. asked Griffin to buy her donut sticks from
a nearby gas station. While Griffin and Wilson were at the gas station, they
video chatted with C.C. to confirm that Griffin was purchasing what she
wanted.
[5] Minutes later, when Griffin and Wilson returned to the house, C.C. was sitting
on her bed. Griffin walked into the bedroom, smiled, and threw a bag of chips
toward her. C.C. then heard a gunshot and covered her ears. When she looked
up, she saw Wilson pointing a gun at her. The next thing she knew, she was
"laying face down on [her] bed with blood . . . like pouring into [her] mouth.â€
Id. at 142. C.C. did not move because she was afraid Wilson would shoot her
again. After she heard the front door shut, C.C. called 911 and managed to get
to the front door to lock it. Griffin was lying on the floor in her bedroom, and
C.C. told the 911 operator that he had been shot and she thought he was dead.
[6] When police arrived, they found C.C. covered in blood with an obvious injury
near her neck. C.C. told the officers that the shooter was a young, light-skinned
black male with tattoos on his face and hands and who went by the nickname
Yellow. During a protective sweep of the house, the officers located Griffin,
who appeared to be deceased from a gunshot wound to the back of the head, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 4 of 11
lying on the bedroom floor. C.C.'s daughter and niece were found hiding under
blankets in another bedroom in the house.
[7] As officers responded to C.C.'s house, Richard Faulkner, Sr., an officer with
the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department went to look for the suspect.
He parked in the area of the nearby gas station and waited. After a few
minutes, Officer Faulkner observed Wilson—who fit the description of the
suspect provided by C.C.—casually leaning against a light pole across the street
from the gas station and eating donut sticks. When another police car drove by,
the officer observed Wilson straighten up and lean closer to the light pole.
Wilson then walked across the street to the gas station. Officers moved in and
arrested Wilson. Wilson had donut sticks on him and according to one officer,
Wilson appeared sweaty and out of breath like he had recently been running.
During a pat-down search, officers found a bag of seven unfired bullets in
Wilson's pocket.
[8] An autopsy revealed that Griffin suffered a fatal gunshot wound behind his
right ear. The bullet severely fractured his skull and lodged in his brain. C.C.
suffered a single gunshot wound that injured her neck, cheek, and wrist. She
remained in the hospital for approximately four days.
[9] On January 24, 2019, the State charged Wilson with murder, attempted
murder, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. A jury
trial was held March 2-4, 2020. At trial, C.C. testified that she saw Wilson
pointing the gun at her at the time of the shooting. Several witnesses, including Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 5 of 11
C.C. and Griffin's mother and brother, identified Wilson as Griffin's
companion on the day of the shooting. The State also presented evidence that
Wilson's phone connected to C.C.'s Wi-Fi on the evening in question and of
footprints in her car that were consistent with the shoes Wilson was wearing.
The bullets found in Wilson's pocket were of the same caliber, albeit multiple
brands, as the two spent casings found at the scene of the shooting.
[10] During the trial, Detective Chris Edwards testified that he created a photo array
for C.C. to make her initial identification. In response to the deputy
prosecutor's question as to how he selected the photographs for the photo array,
Detective Edwards stated that he used "a computer system with – basically like
mugshots of everybody whose [sic] been arrested in Marion County.â€
Transcript Vol. 3 at 96. Defense counsel immediately objected. Following a
short sidebar conversation, the trial court struck Detective Edwards's response
and admonished the jury not to consider it:
I show the last comment made by Detective Edwards, the last
statement made by him about mugshots and in Marion County,
Indianapolis is stricken from the record. Ladies and gentlemen
of the jury, you are not to consider that. That is stricken from the
record.
Id. at 97. Outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel requested a mistrial,
claiming that Detective Edwards's testimony was an "evidentiary harpoonâ€
that placed him in "a position of grave peril.†Id. at 98, 97. He also disagreed
with the State's argument that Detective Edwards's use of the term "mugshotâ€
was inadvertent and that the situation could be rehabilitated. Id. at 100. The Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 6 of 11
trial court denied the motion for mistrial. Detective Edwards then testified that
he has access to several databases as sources for photographs to make a photo
array, including the bureau of motor vehicles. Upon being shown the photo
array, C.C. identified Wilson as the person who shot her.1
Reports on the
contents of C.C.'s and Griffin's cell phones showed that the video chat from the
gas station occurred approximately ten minutes before the 911 call was made
from C.C.'s phone at approximately 9:32 p.m. C.C. testified that the shooting
occurred immediately after Griffin and Wilson had returned.
[11] At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury found Wilson guilty as charged.
After the guilty verdict, the trial court granted the State's request that the
firearms charge be dismissed. On June 22, 2020, the trial court sentenced
Wilson to consecutive terms of sixty years for murder and thirty years for
attempted murder. On October 9, 2020, Wilson was granted permission to
pursue a belated appeal. Additional facts will be provided, as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
1. Mistrial
[12] The grant or denial of a motion for mistrial rests within the sound discretion of
the trial court and is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Brittain v. State, 68
N.E.3d 611, 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. We afford the trial court
1 Griffin's mother and brother also identified Wilson from a photo array as the individual accompanying
Griffin that evening.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 7 of 11
great deference on appeal because the trial court is in the best position to
evaluate the relevant circumstances of an event and its impact on the jury. Id.
at 620. The grant of a mistrial is an extreme remedy that should be used only
when no other curative measure will rectify the situation. Kemper v. State, 35
N.E.3d 306, 309 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. In reviewing the denial of a
motion for a mistrial, the defendant must demonstrate that the conduct
complained of was both in error and had a probable persuasive effect on the
jury's decision. Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 821, 825 (Ind. 2002). More
specifically, the appellant must establish that the questioned conduct was so
prejudicial and inflammatory that he was placed in a position of grave peril to
which he should not have been subjected. Gregory v. State, 540 N.E.2d 585, 589
(Ind. 1989).
[13] Wilson argues that a mistrial was warranted because Detective Edwards's
testimony that he created the photo array using "mugshots of everybody whose
[sic] been arrested in Marion County†informed the jury that Wilson had
previously been arrested, thereby inviting the jury to draw the forbidden
inference. Transcript Vol. 3 at 96. He claims that such testimony was
intentionally injected into the trial in that there was no legitimate purpose to ask
about the source of the photographs in the array and the testimony was
provided by an experienced police officer.
[14] In Coleman v. State, 490 N.E.2d 325 (Ind. 1986), our Supreme Court was
presented with similar circumstances. In that case, a veteran police officer
testified that in creating a photographic array, he "pulled the mugshots—I'm Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 8 of 11
sorry, the police photographs out and gave each [victim] a group of
photographs.†Id. at 327. The Supreme Court noted that "the use of the term
mug shot in testimony may be prejudicial to the defendant. However, the mere
mention of the term mug shot is not reversible error per se. Reversal is not
required if the reference is unintentional or evidence of guilt is strong.†Id. at
328. With regard to the specific instance, the Court determined that the
testimony, although made by an experienced police officer, was inadvertent.
The Court also determined that use of the term mugshot "did not refer to any
particular mug shot of the defendant, but referred to the general category of
photos used in a photographic array.†Id. Finally, the Court found that there
was substantial evidence of the defendant's guilt. Under these circumstances,
the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
defendant's motion for mistrial.
[15] The same result follows here. First, Detective Edwards did not explicitly state
that Wilson's photograph was obtained from the mugshot database. Second,
even though Detective Edwards referred to mugshots and arrests, his testimony
created the same risk of prejudice that was addressed in Coleman. Third, that
Detective Edwards did not correct his misstatement is not indicative of his
intent or lack thereof as defense counsel immediately objected before Detective
Edwards could reflect upon his testimony and perhaps attempt to correct his
misstatement. In any event, the trial court was in the best position to determine
whether the evidence was intentionally or inadvertently injected into the trial.
See Greenlee v. State, 655 N.E.2d 488, 490 (Ind. 1995) (whether challenged Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 9 of 11
testimony was intentionally injected into the trial is but one factor that is
relevant in deciding whether reference to prior acts warrants a mistrial).
[16] Finally, as in Coleman, here, there is substantial evidence of Wilson's guilt.
C.C. identified Wilson as the person she saw pointing a gun at her just before
she was shot. The next thing she knew, she was lying face down on her bed
with blood pouring into her mouth. Other witnesses identified Wilson as
Griffin's companion that evening. Wilson's cell phone connected to C.C.'s WiFi the evening of the shooting and shoe prints in C.C.'s car were consistent with
shoes worn by Wilson. Not ten minutes before Griffin and C.C. were shot,
C.C. was video chatting with Griffin and Wilson while they were at a gas
station a few blocks from C.C.'s house picking up snacks. In the video, Wilson
was holding the donut sticks requested by C.C. and when he was arrested
shortly after the shooting, he was eating donut sticks.
[17] Moreover, we find that any peril was immediately addressed when the court
strongly admonished the jury. See Lehman v. State, 777 N.E.2d 69, 72 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2002) ("[r]eversible error is seldom found when the trial court has
admonished the jury to disregard a statement made during the proceedings,
because a timely and accurate admonition to the jury is presumed to sufficiently
protect a defendant's rights and remove any error created by the objectionable
statementâ€). We disagree with Wilson that the court's admonition, in which
the trial court repeated the testimony being stricken, amounted to a "drumbeat Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 10 of 11
repetition†of the improper testimony. Appellant's Brief at 21. The trial court
simply identified the precise testimony that the jury was to disregard.2
[18] Wilson has not shown that the passing reference to mugshots and arrests placed
him in great peril. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his
motion for mistrial.
2. Sufficiency
[19] Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well settled.
We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting
the conviction. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not
assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence, and we will affirm unless
no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. It is not necessary that the evidence overcome every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence; rather, the evidence will be found sufficient
if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the conviction. Id.
at 147. "The uncorroborated testimony of one witness, even if it is the victim,
2 Additionally, we note that the jurors received a specific instruction at the outset of trial not to consider
stricken evidence:
During the trial the court may rule that certain questions may not be answered and/or that
certain exhibits may not be allowed into evidence. You must not concern yourselves with the
reasons for the rulings. The court's rulings are strictly controlled by law. Occasionally, the
court may strike evidence from the record after you have already seen or heard it. You must not
consider such evidence in making your decision.
Transcript Vol. 2 at 103-04. Jurors are presumed to follow a trial court's instructions. Ward v. State, 138
N.E.2d 268, 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1925 | May 12, 2021 Page 11 of 11
is sufficient to sustain a conviction.†Whitener v. State, 982 N.E.2d 439, 444
(Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
[20] Wilson argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions because
the jury's verdicts are based on his mere presence at the scene. Wilson claims
that there is no evidence that he fired the gun that killed Griffin and seriously
wounded C.C. and given the fact that there is "no discernable reason for the
shooting, the jury easily could have found that another person was present but
not seen by C.C. and that person may have been the shooter.†Appellant's Brief
at 25. We will not indulge Wilson's blatant request to reweigh the evidence and
judge the credibility of witnesses. C.C. testified that she heard a gunshot and
looked up and saw Wilson pointing a gun at her. The next thing she knew, she
was lying face down on her bed with blood pouring into her mouth. When
police responded to her 911 call, she immediately identified Wilson as the
shooter and provided a physical description. A short time later, while still at
the hospital, C.C. identified Wilson from a photographic array. C.C.'s
testimony is sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded that
Wilson murdered Griffin and then shot C.C.
Outcome:
Judgment affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of JORDAN DONTA WILSON v. State of Indiana?
The outcome was: Judgment affirmed
Which court heard JORDAN DONTA WILSON v. State of Indiana?
This case was heard in COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, IN. The presiding judge was Robert R. Altice, Jr..
Who were the attorneys in JORDAN DONTA WILSON v. State of Indiana?
Plaintiff's attorney: Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Justin F. Roebel Supervising Deputy Attorney. Defendant's attorney: Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was JORDAN DONTA WILSON v. State of Indiana decided?
This case was decided on May 16, 2021.