Jones v. State
| Docket Number | 22A-CR-2661 |
| Decision Date | 22 August 2023 |
| Parties | Gareth Sylvester Earl Jones, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court The Honorable Susan L. Orth Judge Pro Tempore Trial Court Cause No. 10C01-2103-F1-2
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Fishers, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Nicole D. Wiggins
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
[¶1] Gareth Jones was convicted of burglary resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 1 felony, and robbery, a Level 5 felony. Jones appeals and claims that: (1) the trial court improperly admitted DNA evidence obtained from the victim's clothing; (2) the trial court improperly excluded the audio portion of a police body camera video; (3) the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions; and (4) his aggregate forty-year sentence is inappropriate. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.
[¶2] Jones presents four issues, which we reorder and restate as:
[¶3] In the winter of 2019, then eighty-five-year-old M.B. lived in a ground-floor unit of an apartment complex for elderly residents in Clarksville, Indiana. M.B.'s daughter, A.B., lived in a different unit of the same apartment complex. M.B.'s apartment was equipped with an emergency cord that could be pulled to summon assistance.
[¶4] On December 27, 2019, M.B. ate dinner with A.B. in M.B.'s apartment. At around 7:30 p.m., M.B. walked A.B. to her apartment and returned home. M.B. planned to see her grandchildren the next day, and she set out several Christmas bags containing gift cards. M.B. then sat in her chair and fell asleep while watching television.
[¶5] M.B. awoke to being attacked by a man she did not know. The man slammed M.B.'s head onto the floor and attempted to rip her clothes off. M.B. was able to pull the emergency cord during the attack. M.B.'s neighbors saw the emergency light activate in M.B.'s apartment and telephoned 911. The attacker fled at some later point.
[¶6] The Clarksville Fire Department arrived first on the scene, followed shortly by officers from the Clarksville Police Department ("CPD"). EMTs found a badly-injured M.B. lying on her kitchen floor and transported her to the hospital. CPD officers found M.B.'s apartment in disarray and observed blood on the carpeting. The sliding patio door was ajar. The police collected evidence from the apartment, which included M.B.'s bloody pajama pants and underwear that were lying on the floor. A trail of papers led from M.B.'s apartment to an outdoor dumpster; inside, the police found M.B.'s wallet.
Officers swabbed the wallet for DNA. M.B.'s purse and the gift cards for her grandchildren were missing and never recovered.
[¶7] At the hospital, M.B. was treated for a crushed orbital bone, broken wrist, broken nose, and two broken vertebrae. The clothing M.B. was wearing when she arrived at the hospital-a robe and a bed sheet-were taken by unknown hospital personnel and placed in a large zip-top plastic bag. Around one hour after the attack, CPD Detective Captain Raymond Hall interviewed M.B. Captain Hall took the bag containing M.B.'s clothing and placed it in his locked office. Two days later, Captain Hall logged the clothing into the CPD's evidence room.
[¶8] The police sent the DNA sample obtained from M.B.'s wallet to the Indiana State Police Laboratory. The police also obtained DNA samples from three suspects-none of whom were Jones. The DNA found on the wallet did not match these suspects, and the case went cold.
[¶9] Then, in early 2021, Captain Hall received information suggesting that Jones was involved in the attack on M.B. Although Jones lived in nearby Louisville, Kentucky, he worked in Clarksville in late 2019 and early 2020 and often spent the night with a friend who lived in Clarksville. Jones also often walked past M.B.'s apartment on his way to work. Captain Hall obtained a warrant to obtain a DNA sample from Jones. Jones, however, could not be located, and the warrant expired.
[¶10] On March 16, 2021, Captain Hall located Jones and, after informing Jones of his Miranda rights, interviewed him. Jones acknowledged working in Clarksville at the time of the attack, but he denied being involved. Jones voluntarily submitted to a DNA swab. The next month, the police sent M.B.'s robe and pajamas to the State Police Laboratory for DNA testing. The police also submitted Jones's DNA sample for comparison. Indiana State Police Laboratory Forensic Biologist Lyndsey Skipton received the swab from the wallet and the bag containing the robe and sheet. She took fabric samples from the items and tested them for bodily fluids. The DNA on the wallet and robe matched Jones's DNA to an incredibly high degree of mathematical certainty.[1]The DNA found on the pajama pants matched Jones's DNA, but to a much lower degree of certainty-only twice as likely to have come from Jones than from an unknown, unrelated person.
[¶11] On March 4, 2021, the State charged Jones with Count I: burglary resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 1 felony; Count II, robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 2 felony; Count III, battery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 5 felony; and Count IV, sexual battery, a Level 6 felony. A jury trial was held from April 19 through April 29, 2022. At trial, Jones's theory of the case was that the police conducted a shoddy investigation. Jones claimed that the police failed to properly ensure that the chain of custody of the evidence was maintained and that the police failed to adequately investigate the other suspects. When the State offered into evidence the bag of clothing taken from M.B. at the hospital, Jones objected on grounds that the State had failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody. The trial court overruled this objection.
[¶12] Jones sought to introduce body camera video from the officers at the scene, which depicted officers not wearing gloves, walking through the crime scene, and commenting on certain items without collecting them. The trial court excluded most of the audio from the body camera footage and ruled that the officers' comments were irrelevant. At the end of the trial, the jury found Jones guilty of Counts I, II, and III, but acquitted him of Count IV.
[¶13] The trial court held a sentencing hearing on October 12, 2022. M.B. testified that the attack left her with PTSD and that she now lived in constant fear. A.B. testified that her mother had been very active for her age before the attack but that she now lived in pain and in fear. Jones's mother testified at sentencing regarding abuse Jones suffered as a child at the hands of his father. Jones's girlfriend testified that Jones was the primary caregiver to their two children and had been a good father.
[¶14] The trial court found as aggravating the significant and long-term injuries M.B. suffered and M.B.'s advanced age. The trial court further found as moderately aggravating Jones's criminal history consisting of two prior misdemeanor theft convictions. The court found as mitigating the abuse Jones suffered as a child, the hardship incarceration would impose on his children, and Jones's lack of substance abuse. Ultimately, the trial court concluded that the aggravators of M.B.'s age and the severity of her injuries "far outweigh[ed]" the mitigating factors. Tr. Vol. VII p. 4. Due to double jeopardy concerns, the trial court vacated Jones's battery conviction and reduced the robbery conviction to a Level 5 felony. The court imposed a sentence of forty years on Count I and a concurrent sentence of six years on Count II. Jones now appeals.
[¶15] Jones argues that the trial court improperly admitted DNA evidence found on M.B.'s clothes, which were placed in a plastic bag by hospital staff and later obtained by the police from the hospital. We review challenges to the admission of evidence for an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Combs v. State, 168 N.E.3d 985, 990 (Ind. 2021). We will reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party's substantial rights. Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 259-60 (Ind. 2013).
[¶16] Jones argues that the evidence obtained from the clothing in the bag should have been excluded because the State failed to properly establish the chain of custody. An exhibit is admissible "if the evidence regarding its chain of custody strongly suggests the exact whereabouts of the evidence at all times." Culver v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1062, 1067 (Ind. 2000). The State must give "reasonable assurances that the property passed through various hands in an undisturbed condition." Id. The State need not establish a perfect chain of custody, and any gaps in the chain go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility. Id. There is a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers. Id. Merely raising the possibility of tampering is insufficient to make a successful challenge to the chain of custody. Troxell v. State, 778...
To continue reading
Request your trial