Jemery Alan Riddle v,. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 27A05-1606-CR-1360

Defendant Jeremy Alan Riddle was tried for murder, unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (Level 4), and theft (Level 6) after shooting neighbor Wendell Donaldson in the back of the head and stealing property.
Evidence included decomposed body with a 9mm spent casing at the scene, the victim’s pockets turned inside out, missing phone and pills, and Riddle’s fingerprints/DNA on a glass at the scene and a 9mm handgun found near Riddle’s residence that matched the spent casing.
Riddle sold some stolen items to a pawn shop shortly after the killing and made statements admitting he had done something "bad" to obtain money for his wife’s bond.
At trial Riddle objected to admission of multiple crime-scene photographs and autopsy photographs as unduly prejudicial and, for autopsy photos, showing the body in an altered condition. The trial court admitted the challenged exhibits over objection.
Jury convicted Riddle on all counts; aggregate sentence 77 years. Riddle appealed, arguing the photo admissions denied him a fair trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of crime‑scene photographs (gruesome/repetitive)	Photos were relevant to wound, body position, decomposition, and theft motive; showed angles and scene layout important to State’s case	Photos were graphic, repetitive, and some not referenced in testimony, so probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice	Court upheld admission: photos were relevant and aided the jury; one potentially redundant photo (Ex. 24) would be harmless error given other evidence of guilt
Admissibility of autopsy photographs (body altered)	Minimal, necessary manipulation by pathologist to show entry wound and stippling; alteration explained to jury, and photos demonstrated testimony	Autopsy photos showed the body in an altered/manipulated state and thus were inadmissible or unduly prejudicial	Court upheld admission: manipulation was minor and done to demonstrate injuries; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice

Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670 (Ind. 2013) (standard for admitting photographs and autopsy-photo considerations)
Woods v. State, 677 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 1997) (crime‑scene and body photos admissible if relevant and aid jury)
Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401 (Ind. 2000) (photograph’s probative value must not be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice)
Amburgey v. State, 696 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. 1998) (even gory photos admissible if relevant to material issue)
Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622 (Ind. 2002) (harmless error test for evidentiary rulings)
Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (substantial independent evidence can render erroneous admission harmless)
Swingley v. State, 739 N.E.2d 132 (Ind. 2000) (autopsy photos generally inadmissible if body shown in altered condition, but limited alteration allowed to demonstrate testimony)
Allen v. State, 686 N.E.2d 760 (Ind. 1997) (concern that autopsy manipulation may be imputed to defendant)