Artavius G. Richards v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
02A04-1703-CR-646
Ind. Ct. App. Recl.Dec 6, 2017Background
- On Feb. 24, 2016, Richards, Stiner, and McDaniel entered a house after telling a driver they were going to “lash” (rob) two people; they exited the car together and returned about five minutes later.
- After leaving, Stiner told the driver “Artie f**king shot ‘em,” and Richards made statements admitting involvement and referencing his brother shooting and the need to leave no witnesses; they discussed disposing of guns.
- Three victims were found dead inside the house from multiple gunshot wounds; police charged Richards with three counts of felony murder and a firearm enhancement.
- At trial the State admitted statements by Stiner and McDaniel under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule; Richards objected, arguing the statements were not in furtherance of any conspiracy.
- A jury convicted Richards on all counts; the trial court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 190 years. Richards appealed, challenging the hearsay ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements by Stiner and McDaniel were admissible under the co‑conspirator hearsay exception | State: independent evidence (driver's testimony) shows a conspiracy among Richards, Stiner, and McDaniel; statements were made during and in furtherance of that conspiracy (including during getaway and discussions about disposing guns) | Richards: the statements were not made in furtherance of any conspiracy and thus are inadmissible hearsay | Court: affirmed admission—independent evidence established a conspiracy, and the statements occurred during and in furtherance of it |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 6 N.E.3d 491 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Barber v. State, 715 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 1999) (State must prove conspiracy and that statements were during and in furtherance of it)
- Lander v. State, 762 N.E.2d 1208 (Ind. 2002) (requirement of independent evidence of conspiracy apart from declarant's statements)
- Lott v. State, 690 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 1997) (discussing limits on co‑conspirator hearsay and need for independent proof)
- Chinn v. State, 511 N.E.2d 1000 (Ind. 1987) (statements admissible only if made between the beginning and end of the conspiracy and in furtherance of its objectives)