Willie B. Jenkins v. State of Indiana
34 N.E.3d 258
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On Dec. 6, 2013, Willie B. Jenkins and Terron Roby forced entry into Frankie (Frankie) Blackmon’s apartment after Charles Holmes knocked; Blackmon was struck with a bottle and a pistol and occupants were ordered to lie on the floor.
- The intruders stole watches, rings, medication, cell phones, money, a small amount of marijuana, and Holmes’ wallet, threatened to kill occupants, and told Blackmon not to call police.
- A neighbor reported the incident; pretrial photo-array identifications tied Jenkins to the crime. At arrest Jenkins denied involvement.
- At trial two witnesses (Alexander and Holmes) recanted or equivocated about prior identifications, but Blackmon identified Jenkins as one of the perpetrators.
- The State introduced, over objection, a Facebook photo of Roby wearing a bandana and pointing a gun; Jenkins was tried with separate charges and convicted of Class A burglary, Class B robbery (with a deadly weapon), and Class B criminal confinement.
- The court of appeals affirmed, addressing sufficiency of evidence for burglary, the incredible-dubiosity claim, and admission of the co-actor photograph.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Class A burglary (breaking + intent + bodily injury) | State: evidence showed forcible entry/subdual and injuries, supporting burglary conviction | Jenkins: no evidence he "broke" into apartment (door opened by Holmes); conviction should be reversed | Affirmed — slightest force or use of force against a person to gain entry satisfies breaking; evidence supported burglary conviction |
| Incredible-dubiosity of victim ID (Blackmon) | State: Blackmon’s ID and other evidence corroborate guilt despite other witnesses' recantation | Jenkins: recantations by Alexander and Holmes render identifications unreliable; Blackmon’s testimony is dubiously inconsistent | Affirmed — recantations do not render victim’s testimony inherently improbable; uncorroborated victim testimony can suffice and here other corroboration existed |
| Admission of Facebook photo of co-actor (Roby) pointing gun | State: photo is probative of similar weapon and concerted action between defendants | Jenkins: photo prejudicial, no direct nexus to Jenkins, improper 404(b) use and unknown provenance | Admission waived on appeal and, in any event, harmless error given substantial independent evidence of guilt |
| Trial court’s evidentiary discretion abuse claim | State: court properly exercised discretion; ruling sustainable on any ground | Jenkins: trial court abused discretion by admitting prejudicial photo | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; even if error, it was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review and deference to factfinder)
- Bellmore v. State, 602 N.E.2d 111 (Ind. 1992) (force against victim, not just door, can satisfy "breaking")
- Davis v. State, 770 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. 2002) (even slight force or opening an unlocked door can constitute breaking)
- Smith v. State, 535 N.E.2d 117 (Ind. 1989) (physical movement of structural impediment required for breaking)
- Rodgers v. State, 422 N.E.2d 1211 (Ind. 1981) (incredible-dubiosity doctrine limits appellate intrusion on credibility determinations)
- Murray v. State, 761 N.E.2d 406 (Ind. 2002) (contradictory trial and pretrial statements do not automatically render testimony incredibly dubious)
- Mayo v. State, 681 N.E.2d 689 (Ind. 1997) (victim’s uncorroborated testimony alone can support conviction)
- Tolliver v. State, 922 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Calhoon v. State, 842 N.E.2d 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (distinguishes cases where no force was used to gain entry)