Deyante A. Stephens v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 31 2019, 8:39 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Thomas C. Allen Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Samantha M. Sumcad
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Deyante A. Stephens, December 31, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-987
v. Appeal from the
Allen Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. Frances C. Gull, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D06-1801-MR-2
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-987 | December 31, 2019 Page 1 of 9
[1] Deyante A. Stephens (“Stephens”) was convicted after a jury trial of three
counts of murder1 and one count of using a firearm in the commission of the
offense.2 He appeals his convictions and raises the following restated issue for
review: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence
of an alleged third-party perpetrator.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On January 19, 2018, Tomeka3 Bennett (“Bennett”) lived in a house at 1239
Lillie Street in Fort Wayne, Indiana with her children and a roommate. Tr. Vol.
2 at 224-27, 233, 242, 247-48. Around 10:00 p.m., Bennett’s brother, Paul
Martin (“Martin”),4 came over with Stephens to sell Bennett a puppy. Tr. Vol. 3
at 4; Tr. Vol. 4 at 47, 53. The two men stayed about ten minutes, left together,
and then went to the apartment of Matthew Turner (“Turner”) to hang out after
getting some food. Tr. Vol. 4 at 48-49. Later that night, Brianna Gould
(“Gould”), who was pregnant at the time, came to Turner’s apartment with a
friend, Kassandra Townsley (“Townsley”), to hang out with Stephens, Martin,
and Turner. Id. at 49-50; Tr. Vol. 2 at 214-15. While there, people were
1
See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.
2
See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-11.
3
The parties spell Bennett’s first name as “Tamika”; however, during her testimony at trial, she spelled it as
“Tomeka.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 247.
4
We note that the parties refer to Bennett’s brother as Paul Mitchell; however, the transcript reflects that his
name is actually Paul Martin. Tr. Vol. 4 at 44.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-987 | December 31, 2019 Page 2 of 9
drinking alcohol. Tr. Vol. 4 at 51. Townsley remembers that Stephens was
wearing a gray sweatshirt and gray sweatpants and glasses that night and that
he had a semi-automatic handgun tucked in his waistband. Tr. Vol. 2 at 216-17.
Gould and Townsley left after about an hour. Tr. Vol. 4 at 51.
[4] After leaving Turner’s apartment, Gould and Townsley went to pick up
Preonda Jones (“Jones”), and Townsley, who was driving, then dropped Gould
and Jones off at Bennett’s house on Lillie Street in the early morning hours of
January 20, 2018. Tr. Vol. 2 at 218-19. A little bit later, Stephens, Turner, and
Martin also went to Bennett’s house. Tr. Vol. 4 at 54, 100. Martin, Stephens,
and Turner let themselves and Gould and Jones into the house because none of
the inhabitants of the house were awake when they arrived. Id. at 55. Martin
and Stephens went into the kitchen, and Turner went into one of the bedrooms
where Bennett was. Id. at 56. Gould and Jones were in the bathroom. Id. 56,
103.
[5] Sometime later that morning, there were multiple gunshots inside the home.
Tr. Vol. 2 at 228, 235, 244; Tr. Vol. 3 at 6, 29. The noise of the gunshots woke
up Bennett and the others in the house. Tr. Vol. 2 at 228, 235, 244; Tr. Vol. 3 at
10, 29, 67. Bennett stayed in her bedroom but could hear a woman’s voice
asking for help and Stephens’s distinct voice talking and yelling. Tr. Vol. 3 at
10-11, 64-68. When Bennett did leave her bedroom a short time later, Martin
and Stephens were gone, but, inside the bathroom, she found Jones, dead on
the floor, and Gould in the bathtub suffering from multiple gunshot wounds.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-987 | December 31, 2019 Page 3 of 9
Tr. Vol. 4 at 60-61. Both Gould and her unborn baby, which was viable at the
time, later died. Tr. Vol. 3 at 220-21.
[6] During the ensuing police investigation, officers observed damage to the front
door of Bennett’s house that was consistent with being kicked in, and the door
had a smear that resembled a footprint. Id. at 94, 101, 143-44. Inside the
bathroom, the police found multiple shell casings determined to be from a nine-
millimeter handgun. Id. at 103-05, 145, 159. There was also a magazine for a
handgun that still held eight rounds of ammunition found in the bathroom. Id.
at 37, 110-13. The police also discovered blood stains on both the inside and
outside of the back door of the house. Id. at 135-37; Tr. Vol. 4 at 22. A cigar
was found outside of the house, which appeared to have been dropped recently.
Tr. Vol. 3 at 99, 142-43.
[7] Later in the morning of January 20, 2018, a man in an apartment complex
approximately three miles from Bennett’s house had an intruder attempt to
enter his apartment. Id. at 72-74, 179. The intruder was later identified as
Stephens. Id. at 76. When the resident opened the apartment door to look out,
Stephens attempted to push his way into the apartment. Id. at 74-75. The
resident was able to push Stephens out, lock the door, and call the police. Id. at
75. Stephens appeared to be intoxicated, had blood on his clothing, and was
looking for someone and calling out a name. Id. at 74-75.
[8] Fort Wayne Police Department Officer Mitchell Gearhart (“Officer Gearhart”)
responded to the dispatch regarding the disturbance and found Stephens behind
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-987 | December 31, 2019 Page 4 of 9
the apartment wearing a gray sweatshirt and sweatpants with blood on his
clothes. Id. at 190. Initially, Stephens told Officer Gearhart to shoot him. Id.
at 191. Stephens then told Officer Gearhart that he knew him and wanted to
give the officer a hug. Id. at 193. Stephens also stated that he knew why the
cops were looking for him, that they knew what he had done, that he had seen
what was in the bathroom, and then he asked who had snitched on him. Id. at
194, 197, 199-200. He also mentioned a gun and a bathtub. Id. at 194.
Stephens was taken into custody. Id.
[9] Autopsies were performed on all three victims, and the cause of death of the
victims was determined to be multiple gunshot wounds. Id. at 207, 213, 220,
224. Jones had been shot three times, and Gould was shot five times. Id. at
207, 214-15. Gould’s baby sustained one gunshot wound. Id. at 223.
[10] The blood found on Stephens’s clothes was analyzed and came back as
belonging to Gould and Jones. Tr. Vol. 4 at 16-21. The blood stains from the
back door of Bennett’s home were also analyzed and shown to be DNA from
Jones, Gould, and Stephens. Id. at 22-24.
[11] While in custody, Stephens made several telephone calls to third parties, which
were all recorded. State’s Ex. 87. In the calls, he made statements that he
thought that Gould and Jones were snitches. Id.; Tr. Vol. 3 at 181-82.
[12] On January 25, 2018, the State charged Stephens with three counts of murder
and one count of using a firearm in the commission of the offenses. Appellant’s
App. Vol. II at 17-24. A jury trial was held, and prior to trial, the State made an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-987 | December 31, 2019 Page 5 of 9
oral motion in limine to bar Stephens from presenting evidence regarding an
alleged third-party perpetrator. Tr. Vol. 2 at 25-35. Specifically, Stephens
wanted to admit text messages between a third party, David Lewis (“Lewis”),
and Gould that occurred in the hours before the murders. Tr. Vol. 3 at 23. The
trial court granted the State’s motion and determined that Stephens had failed
to show a reasonable connection between the crimes and the alleged third-party
perpetrator, Lewis. Tr. Vol. 2 at 35; Tr. Vol. 4 at 125. At the conclusion of the
trial, the jury found Stephens guilty as charged. Tr. Vol. 4 at 157-58, 160. The
trial court sentenced him to sixty years for each murder conviction and twenty
years for his conviction of using a firearm in the commission of the offenses,
with all of the sentences to run consecutively. Stephens now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[13] We review the trial court’s ruling on the exclusion of evidence for an abuse of
discretion. Tibbs v. State, 59 N.E.3d 1005, 1011 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans.
denied. “The trial court’s ruling regarding the admission of evidence will be
upheld if it is sustainable on any legal theory supported by the record, even if
the trial court did not use that theory.” Id. We will reverse only if the trial
court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances. Id. Generally, errors in the exclusion of evidence are
disregarded as harmless unless they affect the substantial rights of a party.
Friend v. State, 134 N.E.3d 441, 449 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). However, “if error
results from the exclusion of evidence which indicates that someone else had
committed the crime, the error cannot be deemed harmless.” Tibbs, 59 N.E.3d
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-987 | December 31, 2019 Page 6 of 9
at 1011 (citing Allen v. State, 813 N.E.2d 349, 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans.
denied).
[14] Stephens argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded
evidence of an alleged third-party perpetrator of the crimes. He contends that
the text messages between Gould and Lewis that he proffered should have been
admitted because they showed the communications that occurred between the
two in close proximity to the time of the murders, and the text messages would
have allowed the jury to “view the interactions, emotions, state of mind, and
possible threats between the two as they progress through the morning.”
Appellant’s Br. at 23. Further, because the evidence presented against him was
circumstantial and because there was unknown DNA found at the crime scene,
Stephens asserts that his proffered evidence of an alleged third-party perpetrator
was exculpatory and would have raised substantial doubt as to his guilt.
[15] “Evidence which tends to show that someone else committed the crime makes
it less probable that the defendant committed the crime and is therefore relevant
under [Indiana Evidence] Rule 401.” Dickens v. State, 754 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind.
2001) (citing Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 389 (Ind.1997)). Such evidence,
however, may be excluded “if its probative value is out-weighed by unfair
prejudice, confusion of the issues, or the potential to mislead the jury.” Pelley v.
State, 901 N.E.2d 494, 505 (Ind. 2009) (citing Ind. Evidence Rule 403). Before
evidence of an alternative perpetrator is admissible, the defendant must show
some connection between the alternative perpetrator and the crime. Tibbs, 59
N.E.3d at 1011 (citing Pelley, 901 N.E.2d at 504). While a defendant may
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-987 | December 31, 2019 Page 7 of 9
present alternative perpetrator evidence at trial in order to cast doubt on the
defendant’s guilt, the defendant must first lay an evidentiary foundation to
establish that the alternative perpetrator evidence has an inherent tendency to
connect the alternative perpetrator to the actual commission of the charged
crime. Pelley, 901 N.E.2d at 505.
[16] In the present case, Stephens sought to admit into evidence text messages
between Gould and Lewis that Stephens alleged showed that Gould and Lewis
had a contentious, controlling relationship and were arguing just hours before
the murders occurred. Stephens wished to admit this evidence to show that
Lewis could have been an alleged third-party perpetrator of the murders.
Stephens made an offer of proof that consisted of the text messages, and after
argument by both parties, the trial court determined that Stephens had failed to
demonstrate a connection between Lewis, the alleged third-party perpetrator,
and the murders.
[17] During the presentation of the State’s case, Stephens made his offer of proof
regarding the excluded evidence. Lewis testified and Stephens’s attorney
questioned him about whether or not he had had a romantic or sexual
relationship with Gould. Tr. Vol. 3 at 235. Lewis denied any such relationship
and stated that he and Gould were only close friends. Id. Stephens then put
forward his offer of proof as to the text message conversation between Gould
and Lewis that occurred in the hours before the murders. Id. at 237. The text
messages between Gould and Lewis merely showed that the two had a
conversation during the hours before the murders occurred. The text message
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-987 | December 31, 2019 Page 8 of 9
conversation ended several hours before the murders happened and did not
provide a connection to the time that the murders took place or any connection
whatsoever to the murders themselves. In Lashbrook v. State, 762 N.E.2d 756
(Ind. 2002), our Supreme Court determined that just because a third party was
upset with the victim earlier that day and made a statement that the victim “was
gonna die,” such evidence did not tend to show that the third party committed
the murder. Id. at 757. Likewise, here, without more, Stephens’s proffered
evidence that one of the victims and a third party engaged in a contentious text
message conversation several hours before the murders did not tend to show
that the third party committed the murders. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it found that Stephens failed to show a connection between
Lewis and the murders and when it excluded the evidence of the text messages.
[18] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-987 | December 31, 2019 Page 9 of 9