Gentry Hervie Jackson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
45A03-1609-CR-2032
Ind. Ct. App.Jun 19, 2017Background
- On August 3, 2015, Gentry Jackson shot at a car driven by Alec McCloud; McCloud later died from gunshot wounds after the car wrecked. No gun was recovered from McCloud or the car.
- Witness Justin saw Jackson approach the car, say “I got you now,” and fire multiple times; at least six of eight shots struck the car.
- Alexis (McCloud’s daughter) initially told police she saw Alec holding a gun, then later recanted, saying she could not see whether he had a gun and that she felt pressured to lie because Michelle (Jackson’s wife) had told her, “My husband better not go to jail.”
- State charged Jackson with murder. Trial court initially barred, then allowed, testimony about Michelle’s threatening statement as explaining Alexis’s inconsistent pretrial statements; the jury was instructed the statement was attributable to Michelle only.
- The jury convicted Jackson of murder; he appealed, arguing (1) admission of the threat evidence was improper under Rule 403, (2) insufficient evidence of the requisite mens rea (intent), and (3) insufficient evidence to reject his self-defense claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jackson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of testimony that Michelle threatened Alexis (explaining Alexis’s prior inconsistent statements) | Testimony admissible under state-of-mind exception and Rule 613(b) as probative to explain inconsistent statements; jury instructed limiting attribution | Testimony was hearsay and, in the alternative, inadmissible under Evidence Rule 403 as unfairly prejudicial | Admitted was not an abuse of discretion: probative to explain inconsistencies, jury instruction limited prejudice; not so inflammatory as to outweigh probative value |
| Sufficiency of evidence as to mens rea (intent to kill vs. recklessness) | Evidence supports that Jackson knowingly/intentionally killed McCloud — multiple shots fired into car, many strikes, and conduct/circumstances allow inference of intent | At most recklessness — testified he fired while retreating because he saw Alec point a gun | Affirmed: jury could infer intent to kill from number/placement of shots and conduct; evidence sufficient for murder conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence to reject self-defense claim | State met its burden by its case-in-chief and witness testimony rebutting self-defense (no gun found, witness saw phone, Jackson said “I got you now,” continued firing as car fled) | Jackson acted in self-defense after Alec pointed a gun at him | Affirmed: jury reasonably rejected self-defense given contradictory witness testimony, absence of gun, and continued firing after threat ceased |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. State, 497 N.E.2d 221 (Ind. 1986) (prior inconsistent statements driven by threats admissible under state-of-mind exception)
- Hardin v. State, 414 N.E.2d 570 (Ind. 1981) (evidence of threats bearing on witness credibility should be presented to the jury)
- Cox v. State, 422 N.E.2d 357 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (threat evidence requires foundation linking defendant to threats; unconnected third-party threats may be excluded)
- Kimble v. State, 451 N.E.2d 302 (Ind. 1983) (defense opened door to testimony about threats by creating misleading impression on cross-examination)
- Griffith v. State, 31 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2015) (Rule 613(b) and limits on calling witnesses solely to impeach)
- Allen v. State, 575 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. 1991) (firing multiple shots at moving car supports inference of intent to kill)
- Holly v. United States, 167 F.3d 393 (7th Cir. 1999) (prosecutor may ‘front’ anticipated impeachment by eliciting evidence of threats on direct examination)