State v. O.E.W., Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-JV-2409
Docket Nº | Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-JV-2409 |
Citation | 133 N.E.3d 144 |
Case Date | August 19, 2019 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
133 N.E.3d 144
STATE of Indiana, Appellant/Cross-Appellee-Petitioner,
v.
O.E.W., Appellee/Cross-Appellant-Respondent.
Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-JV-2409
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
FILED August 19, 2019
Attorneys for Appellant: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Ellen H. Meilaender, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorney for Appellee: Michael A. Campbell, Highland, Indiana
Mathias, Judge.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In August 2017, then-fifteen-year-old O.E.W. lived with his de facto father Andy Ruiz ("Ruiz"), Ruiz's children, and Ruiz's girlfriend Adriana Garcia ("Garcia"), in a home on Alexander Avenue in Hammond, Indiana. O.E.W.'s girlfriend, C.P., lived on the same block. The victim in this case, Lucia Gonzales ("Gonzales"), lived a block away on Alexander Avenue with her children and her boyfriend, Marco Vera ("Vera"). O.E.W. had previously purchased marijuana from Vera and, on at least one occasion, directly from Gonzales herself.
[3] On August 21, 2017, O.E.W. told his girlfriend C.P. that he planned to go to purchase marijuana from Vera at 9:00 p.m. that night. Between 8:45 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. that evening, Ruiz noticed that O.E.W. had left home without permission. Garcia sent her son and C.P. out to look for O.E.W. Shortly thereafter, C.P. saw O.E.W. running away from the area near Gonzales's home toward the dead-end of Alexander Avenue. O.E.W. then returned to the area of Gonzales's home, got on his bicycle, and rode away. Although C.P. called out O.E.W.'s name, he did not stop.
[4] O.E.W. returned home at approximately 9:30 p.m. He immediately went into the bathroom and took a shower. When O.E.W. came out of the shower, Ruiz noticed that O.E.W. had several injuries, including puncture wounds to his arms, legs, back, and torso. When confronted by Ruiz,
[133 N.E.3d 149
O.E.W. initially stated that the chain on his bicycle had broken and that he had injured himself while attempting to fix it. When Ruiz stated that the injuries did not appear to have been caused by fixing the bicycle, O.E.W. then claimed that he had been stabbed during a fight at a local park. Ruiz took O.E.W. to the hospital, where his wounds were treated. Early the next morning, Garcia saw a black Samsung smartphone lying near O.E.W.'s phone. Garcia had never seen the Samsung phone before, and, when she returned from work later that day, the phone was gone.
[6] Later that day, O.E.W.'s mother, S.W., reported the alleged attack on her son to the police. After speaking with a patrol officer, she telephoned a Detective Suarez, who informed her that she should bring her son to the station to make a statement. She accordingly took O.E.W. to the police station that evening to speak with detectives about his claim that he had been stabbed by another juvenile in a local park the night before. She also indicated to the police that she was concerned that the attack on her son might somehow be related to the death of Gonzalez.
[7] Hammond Police Department Detective Shawn Ford ("Detective Ford") spoke with O.E.W. and his mother in an interview room, where O.E.W.'s statement was video recorded.1 O.E.W. sat at one side of an oval table with Detective Ford sitting across from him. O.E.W.'s mother sat slightly behind and to the right of O.E.W. near the corner of the interview room. O.E.W. told Detective Ford that he and his friend M.C. went to a local park to meet I.W. and his friend D.M. so that O.E.W. and I.W. could finish a fight that had started at school. O.E.W. stated that, after he won the fight, I.W. stabbed him. At some point in the interview, Detective Ford's supervisor, Lieutenant Mark Tharp ("Lt. Tharp") came into the interview room. He did not sit down, but leaned against the door frame. Lt. Tharp also worked as a resource officer at the high school O.E.W. attended and knew some of the juveniles involved in the fight.
[8] During the interview, O.E.W.'s mother appeared to be "uncomfortable and just very kind of nervous and unsettled[.]" Tr. Vol. 2, p. 33. Detective Ford wondered why O.E.W.'s mother was concerned that her son, or the attack on her son, might be
[133 N.E.3d 150
connected with the death of Gonzales. Detective Ford therefore asked if he could speak to her privately, and she agreed. Lt. Tharp took O.E.W. into another room while Detective Ford spoke with O.E.W.'s mother. Lt. Tharp made small talk with O.E.W., but did not interview him and did not garner any information from him at this time. Detective Ford asked O.E.W.'s mother if she had any problems with him asking her son about the murder, and she indicated that "she's fine with [that]." Id.
[10] Detective Ford subsequently spoke with I.W., the youth whom O.E.W. claimed to have fought on the night of the murder. I.W. admitted that he and O.E.W. had gotten into a fight at school, but stated that he did not go to the park to fight. I.W.'s father confirmed that his son was at home that night. I.W. also had no injuries that indicated he had been in a fight. I.W.'s friend D.M. also denied having been at the park, and he too had no injuries indicating that he had been in a fight. O.E.W.'s friend, M.C., also denied having been with O.E.W. in the park when he claimed to have been stabbed. Instead, M.C. told the police that O.E.W. had told him that he was stabbed by someone he could not identify.
[11] On August 23, 2017, the police secured a warrant for information regarding the location of Gonzales's phone. The phone's service provider gave the police the location of the phone, which was on the 1700 block of 171st Street in Hammond. The police went to that address and found O.E.W. sleeping in the basement. Beneath his pillow was Gonzales's phone. Forensic investigation of the phone revealed that it had last connected to Gonzales's wi-fi network at approximately 9:00 p.m. on August 21, the night of the murder, and had next connected to a secure wi-fi network at O.E.W.'s home the following morning at 7:20 a.m. Later that day, it connected to another wi-fi network named "[O.E.W.]'s iPhone." Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 31, 37.
[12] The lead detective in the murder case now considered O.E.W. to be a suspect. Accordingly, he secured a warrant to gather a DNA sample from O.E.W., and the police again took a buccal swab from O.E.W. Subsequent testing revealed that DNA from O.E.W. or one of his paternal relatives was located on the shirt Gonzales was wearing at the time of her death. Gonzalez's DNA was also found on O.E.W.'s underwear, but the rest of the
[133 N.E.3d 151
clothes he had been wearing had already been laundered.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Webb Ford, Inc. v. Ind. Dep't of Fin. Institutions, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-PL-2675
...to treat the $25.00 convenience fee—which everyone agrees is a finance charge that should have been disclosed in the "Finance Charge" [133 N.E.3d 144 box—as an "impermissible additional charge," other than this is how it has done things for forty years. See Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 14. B......
-
Coy v. State, 20A-CR-358
...this appeal. [4] The juvenile waiver statute applies only when the juvenile is in custody and subject to interrogation. State v. O.E.W., 133 N.E.3d 144, 153 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019), trans. denied (2020). There is no dispute that Coy was subject to custodial interrogation. [5] Although Coy has wa......
-
State v. Diego, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-227
...the suspect could reasonably believe that he has the right to interrupt prolonged questioning by leaving the scene. State v. O.E.W. , 133 N.E.3d 144, 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied . [15] Applying the above factors to this case, it is clear that the trial court's order suppressing ......
-
Webb Ford, Inc. v. Ind. Dep't of Fin. Institutions, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-PL-2675
...the $25.00 convenience fee—which everyone agrees is a finance charge that should have been disclosed in the "Finance Charge" [133 N.E.3d 144 box—as an "impermissible additional charge," other than this is how it has done things for forty years. See Appellant's App. Vol. ......
-
Coy v. State, 20A-CR-358
...this appeal. [4] The juvenile waiver statute applies only when the juvenile is in custody and subject to interrogation. State v. O.E.W., 133 N.E.3d 144, 153 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019), trans. denied (2020). There is no dispute that Coy was subject to custodial interrogation. [5] Although Coy has wa......
-
State v. Diego, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-227
...the suspect could reasonably believe that he has the right to interrupt prolonged questioning by leaving the scene. State v. O.E.W. , 133 N.E.3d 144, 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied . [15] Applying the above factors to this case, it is clear that the trial court's order suppressing ......