MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Feb 19 2015, 9:23 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kevin Wild Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Larry Anderson, February 19, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1407-CR-304
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court; The Honorable Marc
Rothenberg, Judge;
State of Indiana, 49G02-1301-MR-4295
Appellee-Plaintiff
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1407-CR-304 | February 19, 2015 Page 1 of 4
[1] Larry Anderson challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction
of murder.1 He alleges the evidence did not demonstrate he was the shooter.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On November 9, 2012, Anderson was driving around town with Asia Baker,
Jalessa Hill, and Thomelia Wilson. Baker talked on the phone with Chris
Roberts, and Roberts agreed to sell drugs to Anderson. When they arrived
where Roberts was, Roberts and his friend, Joey Griffin, came outside to meet
the vehicle on the street. Roberts and Anderson talked through the driver’s
window. Griffin waited on the sidewalk. Baker, Hill, and Wilson were in the
SUV with Anderson. Anderson shot Roberts and drove away. Anderson
warned Baker, Hill, and Wilson to not say anything, and he gave them a
description, quite different from his own looks, to give to the police. He
dropped them off at Wilson’s house.
[4] Hill, Wilson, and Griffin independently identified Anderson in photo arrays as
the driver of the SUV, and Hill, Wilson, Baker, and Griffin identified the driver
of the SUV as the person who shot Roberts. A jury found Anderson guilty of
murder. The court sentenced him to fifty-eight years in the Department of
Correction.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (2012).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1407-CR-304 | February 19, 2015 Page 2 of 4
Discussion and Decision
[5] Our standard of review is well-settled:
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence
and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder’s
role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and
weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a
conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are
confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most
favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Appellate courts affirm the
conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of
the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not
necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of
innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably
be drawn from it to support the verdict.
[6] Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (quotations, citation, and
footnote omitted) (emphasis in original).
[7] Anderson maintains the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of
murder. A person commits murder when he “knowingly or intentionally kills
another human being.” Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (2012). Thus, the State needed
to prove Anderson knowingly or intentionally killed Roberts.
[8] Anderson acknowledges Roberts was murdered, but argues he did not commit
the murder. Anderson asserts the inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimony
and statements prove their unreliability and do not permit a reasonable fact-
finder to infer he committed the murder.
[9] While there were inconsistencies among the witnesses, we must decline
Anderson’s invitation to reweigh the evidence. Hill, Wilson, and Griffin
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1407-CR-304 | February 19, 2015 Page 3 of 4
independently identified Anderson in photo arrays as the driver of the SUV,
and Hill, Wilson, Baker, and Griffin identified the driver of the SUV as the
person who shot Roberts. Based on this evidence, the jury could have found
Anderson murdered Roberts. See Holloway v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1175, 1179 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2013) (different inferences may be possible but the inference made was
not unreasonable). As the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, we
affirm.
[10] Affirmed.
Barnes, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1407-CR-304 | February 19, 2015 Page 4 of 4