Ronald Graham v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A05-1705-CR-1028
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- On Nov. 16, 2010, Ronald Graham met Cory Trotter at a gas station for a planned drug sale; Trotter brought five ounces of marijuana.
- During the meeting Graham produced a handgun, pointed it at Trotter, ordered him not to move, and told him to put his hands on the window.
- Trotter attempted to grab the gun; a struggle ensued, Graham’s car rolled onto an embankment, and Graham shot Trotter three times; Trotter escaped into the station for help.
- Graham, who is partially paralyzed, left the scene with crutches and the gun; he was later charged with attempted murder, attempted robbery (class A felonies), and carrying a handgun without a license (class A misdemeanor).
- After an initial jury conviction and sentence affirmed on direct appeal, Graham’s convictions were vacated on post-conviction relief; in a 2017 bench retrial the court acquitted him of attempted murder but convicted him of attempted robbery and the weapons charge and imposed a 20-year executed sentence.
- On appeal Graham challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting attempted robbery, arguing Trotter’s testimony was incredibly dubious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted robbery | The State: Trotter’s eyewitness testimony and surrounding facts show Graham took a substantial step to take property by force, causing serious bodily injury. | Graham: Trotter’s testimony is incredibly dubious (he lied to investigators about the meeting), so it should be disregarded. | Court: Affirmed — Trotter’s testimony, corroborated by circumstantial facts, is sufficient; incredible-dubiosity rule does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Alvies v. State, 905 N.E.2d 57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (review considers evidence favorable to the judgment and reasonable inferences)
- Ferrell v. State, 565 N.E.2d 1070 (Ind. 1991) (uncorroborated testimony of a single witness can support a conviction)
- Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 2007) (incredible-dubiosity doctrine applies only when testimony is inherently improbable and uncorroborated)
- Thompson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 2002) (incredible-dubiosity rule does not apply when testimony is corroborated)
- Carter v. State, 31 N.E.3d 17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (incredible-dubiosity applies to contradictions within a single statement or testimony, not between multiple statements)