Christian James Cain v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1611-CR-2562
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- On December 12, 2014, Ariana Cheeks was shot to death at her home; multiple witnesses heard shots, saw a person in a black hoodie flee in a gold car, and bullets entered the door and nearby windows.
- Christian James Cain (defendant) was observed that evening in a gold vehicle and later told multiple acquaintances (Mack and Miller) that he "did it" and had shot through a door.
- Cain’s mother, Vivian, had earlier accused Cheeks of stealing her bank/credit card; the State used that allegation to establish motive.
- Mack sold Cain a gun about one week after the shooting; recorded jail calls and photos showed Cain with firearms.
- Cain waived a jury trial; after a bench trial he was convicted of murder and possession of a handgun by a serious violent felon and received consecutive sentences: 58 years (murder) + 10 years (firearm) = 68 years aggregate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of evidence about Vivian’s allegation and police report | Evidence was admissible not for truth but to show Cain’s motive/belief; thus not hearsay | Testimony and police report were hearsay and inadmissible | Court: admissible; offered to show that allegation existed (motive), not its truth — not hearsay |
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder and firearm possession | Confessions to acquaintances, corroborating witness descriptions, ballistics/scene evidence, and gun purchase sufficiently proved guilt | Witnesses were incredible/coerced; evidence established at most reckless homicide | Court: evidence sufficient; multiple corroborated witnesses; intent (knowing) can be inferred from use of deadly weapon and firing into occupied residence |
| Use of prior battery conviction as aggravator | Aggravators (criminal history, parole violation, endangering others) support sentence and consecutives | Using the prior battery (which established SVF status) to aggravate was improper because it was an element of firearm offense | Court: relying on that prior conviction as an aggravator for the firearm count was improper, but other valid aggravators remain; remand unnecessary |
| Appropriateness of aggregate sentence and consecutive terms | Sentence justified by offense seriousness and defendant’s character; consecutive sentencing supported by aggravators | Aggregate 68-year sentence is inappropriate and court abused discretion in aggravation | Court: aggregate sentence not inappropriate; consecutive sentences not an abuse of discretion given valid aggravators and crime circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hunter, 898 N.E.2d 455 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
- Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749 (Ind. 2015) (clarifies scope of the incredible‑dubiosity rule)
- Tuggle v. State, 9 N.E.3d 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Williams v. State, 700 N.E.2d 784 (Ind. 1998) (intent to kill can be inferred from use of deadly weapon in a way likely to cause death)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for appellate review of sentencing and when remand is required)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (framework for appellate appropriateness review under Rule 7(B))
- Hatchett v. State, 740 N.E.2d 920 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (a fact that is an element of the offense cannot be used as an aggravator)
- Gellenbeck v. State, 918 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (trial court may consider particularized circumstances of the crime as aggravating factors)