McGhee v. State
| Decision Date | 10 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-CR-152 |
| Citation | 192 N.E.3d 1009 |
| Parties | James Edward MCGHEE, Jr., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: R. Brian Woodward, Appellate Public Defender, Crown Point, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Nicole D. Wiggins, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] In the summer of 2020, James Edward McGhee, Jr. murdered Sidne Buchanan after the two attended a concert together. Because Buchanan was missing for several days and was last seen with McGhee, the FBI requested McGhee's cell-site location information ("CSLI") records from his cell-phone provider. Buchanan's remains were eventually discovered in an Illinois forest preserve, and the State charged McGhee with her murder. Ultimately, a jury found McGhee guilty of murdering Buchanan.
[2] McGhee appeals his conviction and argues that the admission of the CSLI records violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. He also asserts the State tried him too late and that he was entitled to discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
[3] In July 2019, Buchanan went to a concert with McGhee. There, they had an altercation, and McGhee pushed Buchanan into a vehicle. McGhee was supposed to take Buchanan home after the concert, where she lived with her mother and two children. Instead, McGhee took her to his apartment. At some point, McGhee saw a picture on Buchanan's phone of her performing a sexual act with another man. McGhee and Buchanan "got into it," and McGhee "lost it." Tr. Vol. 8, p. 26. He used Buchanan's phone to call her ex-boyfriend and tell him that Buchanan and McGhee were now in a relationship. McGhee then beat Buchanan to death.
[4] After killing Buchanan, McGhee met his friend, Kevin Thomas, and told him that he needed help because he "went too far." Id. Thomas met McGhee outside of McGhee's apartment, and the two drove around. While in the car, McGhee told Thomas that he had killed Buchanan by "jump[ing] on her neck." Id. at 27. He also said he "thought [Buchanan] was going to wake up, but she never" did. Id. McGhee and Thomas then proceeded to look for a location to hide Buchanan's body.
[5] After finding a spot, the two returned to McGhee's apartment. Upon entering the apartment, Thomas noticed that it was in disarray, which was unusual. He also noticed that McGhee's mattress was recently spray-painted, which McGhee had done "to conceal blood splatters." Id. at 36. And Thomas observed Buchanan's badly beaten body on the floor. Thomas then watched McGhee stuff Buchanan's body in a suitcase, which McGhee used to transport and dump Buchanan's body in an Illinois forest preserve.
[6] Because Buchanan never returned home, her mother was worried. She attempted to contact McGhee several times but received no response. Eventually, when she was able to get ahold of McGhee, McGhee told her that he had dropped Buchanan off at her home after the concert, and he sent her a screenshot from his phone that purported to show him dropping Buchanan off at her home, but the date on the screenshot was not the correct date. Buchanan's mother filed a missing-persons report with the Gary Police Department. Officers reached out to McGhee, and he told them that he had taken Buchanan to her home after the concert.
[7] An FBI task force assumed jurisdiction over the investigation and submitted emergency requests for CSLI records to both Buchanan's and McGhee's cell-phone providers. According to those CSLI records, the last location of Buchanan's cell phone was at McGhee's apartment, and both Buchanan's and McGhee's cell phones "ping[ed]" near the apartment during the overnight hours following the concert. Tr. Vol. 6, p. 9. Based in part on this data, the FBI subsequently obtained search warrants for McGhee's apartment and cell phone records. While executing the warrant at the apartment, the FBI noticed that it smelled strongly of carpet cleaner and that some of the carpet was still wet. The FBI then collected several samples of the carpet, which later tested positive for Buchanan's blood.
[8] In August 2019, after Thomas had helped lead the police to Buchanan's body, the State charged McGhee with murder and alleged that he was a habitual offender. Before trial, McGhee requested a speedy trial and moved to suppress the CSLI records obtained by the FBI prior to the issuance of the search warrants, but the trial court denied his motion. Also, McGhee filed a motion for discharge, which he later renewed and which the trial court ultimately denied, arguing that his right to a speedy trial under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B) had been violated.
[9] A jury found McGhee guilty of Buchanan's murder, and the trial court found him guilty of being a habitual offender. The court subsequently sentenced McGhee to sixty years for murder, which the court increased by twenty years for the habitual offender adjudication. This appeal ensued.
[10] On appeal, McGhee first asserts that the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence the CSLI records obtained by officers without a warrant. "The general admission of evidence at trial is a matter we leave to the discretion of the trial court." Clark v. State , 994 N.E.2d 252, 259–60 (Ind. 2013). "However, when a challenge to an evidentiary ruling is predicated on the constitutionality of a search or seizure of evidence, it raises a question of law that is reviewed de novo." Curry v. State , 90 N.E.3d 677, 683 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. "The State has the burden to demonstrate that the measures it used to seize information or evidence were constitutional." Id.
[11] McGhee first argues his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the FBI obtained his initial CSLI records without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[12] This generally "requires police to obtain a search warrant from a neutral, detached magistrate prior to undertaking a search of either a person or private property." Dycus v. State , 108 N.E.3d 301, 304 (Ind. 2018). But "that requirement is subject to certain carefully drawn and well-delineated exceptions." Id. (quotations omitted). One such exception occurs Carpenter v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2222–23, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018) (cleaned up). Further, in determining whether the exigent-circumstances exception applies, courts look to the totality of the circumstances to decide whether police "faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant." Missouri v. McNeely , 569 U.S. 141, 149, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013).
[13] We hold that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless acquisition of McGhee's CSLI records. When officers made the initial request for the CSLI records, Buchanan had been missing for over forty-eight hours, and it was undisputed—including by McGhee—that she had last been with McGhee before her disappearance. Buchanan's mother also testified that Buchanan, who was supposed to attend a family get-together after the concert, never returned home. Further, neither Buchanan's family nor friends had heard from her, and Buchanan was uncharacteristically silent on social media during those forty-eight hours. Buchanan's mother also testified that she was initially unable to get in touch with McGhee regarding Buchanan's whereabouts.
[14] Moreover, the FBI and Buchanan's mother had good reason to doubt McGhee's eventual assertion that he had dropped Buchanan off at home immediately after the concert. Specifically, McGhee sent Buchanan's mother a screenshot from his phone that purported to show that he had dropped Buchanan off at her home, but the date on the screenshot was not the correct date. Also, witnesses had reported seeing the altercation between McGhee and Buchanan at the concert venue before seeing McGhee push Buchanan into a vehicle.
[15] The officers were also aware that McGhee had a violent criminal history with women. McGhee was on probation for criminal confinement at the time of Buchanan's disappearance, and one of the investigating FBI officers was familiar with McGhee through two prior personal contacts, including a domestic battery incident and an incident where McGhee allegedly kidnapped and threatened to harm his own child. And officers reasonably believed that, if they wanted to find Buchanan alive, they did not have time to wait for a warrant to obtain McGhee's CSLI records. Tr. Vol. 2 pp. 209–10.
[16] Accordingly, McGhee's argument that the FBI's conduct was not justified by exigent circumstances is unavailing.1 The totality of circumstances show that Buchanan's disappearance created an exigent circumstance, and officers reasonably believed that the immediate acquisition of Buchanan's and McGhee's CSLI records was essential to resolving the exigency. See, e.g. , Govan v. State , 116 N.E.3d 1165, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial