MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Oct 17 2018, 9:18 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Matthew D. Anglemeyer Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Appellate Division
Tyler G. Banks
Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Carylon Young, October 17, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-845
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Mark D. Stoner,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G06-1612-MR-46693
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-845 | October 17, 2018 Page 1 of 9
Case Summary
[1] Carylon Young (“Young”) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for the
murder1 of Margaret Means (“Means”). He raises one issue, namely, whether
the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Kathy Albright (“Albright”) ran a ministry for homeless persons called Meet
Me Under the Bridge in Indianapolis in November 2016. The ministry served
hot meals, passed out clothes, and conducted church services on the weekends.
Through this ministry, Albright came to know Ashlee Lane (“Lane”), who
came to Meet Me Under the Bridge to eat and attend the church services.
Means also attended the services, and Albright knew that Lane and Means were
“very good friends.” Tr. Vol. II at 99.
[4] Means was wheelchair-bound and homeless on November 17, 2016, and she
had been living in a parking lot located behind Lane’s apartment building.
Means was in a romantic relationship with Young, who took care of Means and
helped her move in her wheelchair. On Sundays, Young and Means together
attended Albright’s homeless ministry. By November 2016, Albright had seen
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-845 | October 17, 2018 Page 2 of 9
Young at the ministry for about four months and had seen Means at the
ministry for about six months.
[5] On November 17 at approximately 9:00 p.m, Young got into an argument with
an employee at a Family Dollar store near the parking lot where Means lived.
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) Officer Jeremey
Morris (“Officer Morris”) spoke with the employee and Young and then gave
Young a trespass warning. During his encounter with Young, Officer Morris
observed that Young’s demeanor was “argumentative” and Young was
“upset.” Id. at 21-22.
[6] At approximately 3:30 a.m. the next morning, November 18, off-duty
Stinesville police officer Donald Wadsworth (“Officer Wadsworth”) was
working security at a Speedway gas station near the Family Dollar store. A
concerned citizen told Officer Wadsworth that an argument was taking place in
a parking lot. While looking for the argument, Officer Wadsworth drove down
the street and into the parking lot where Means lived. There, he found Means’s
dead body lying face up under a sheet on a mattress. Officer Wadsworth called
9-1-1 and IMPD officers arrived to investigate the scene.
[7] Albright saw Lane on November 20, 2016, the Sunday after Means’s death.
Albright observed that Lane “was a wreck” and “was shaking, and crying,” and
Lane then told Albright that she had seen Young kill Means. Id. at 76, 100.
[8] On November 23, 2016, IMPD Homicide Detective Chris Craighill (“Det.
Craighill”) interviewed Young, who had agreed to talk to Det. Craighill and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-845 | October 17, 2018 Page 3 of 9
had signed a waiver for a buccal swab to be taken for DNA comparison
purposes. Young also agreed to have photographs taken of his person. After
that, Young “was free to go[,]” and he left the police station. Id. at 200.
[9] On November 27, Albright called Det. Craighill to report that she had been
contacted by an eyewitness to Means’s murder and arranged for Det. Craighill
to meet with Lane. The next day, Lane met with Det. Craighill at Albright’s
ministry. Lane disclosed to Det. Craighill that she witnessed Means being
killed, and Lane also identified Young as Means’s killer through a photographic
lineup.
[10] Albright did not see Young for about three weeks following Means’s death.
Albright found this “peculiar” because she had seen him at her ministry “every
Sunday prior to [Means] being killed” for approximately “four months.” Id. at
102. When Young eventually returned to Meet Me Under the Bridge on
December 4, 2016, he immediately approached Albright and, without any
prompting or prior conversation about Means’s death, began to “defend[]
himself,” telling her that he did not kill Means. Id. at 108, 220; Appellant’s
App. Vol. II at 168. Albright witnessed Young go “around to all the other
volunteers saying the same thing.” Id. Lane was present when Young arrived
at Meet Me Under the Bridge, and Albright observed that Lane “started
freaking out” and was “[c]rying and shaking.” Id. at 103. Albright informed
the police that Young was at her ministry, and the police arrived and arrested
Young.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-845 | October 17, 2018 Page 4 of 9
[11] On December 6, 2016, the State charged Young with two counts of murder,2
one count of robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 2 felony,3 and
one count of armed robbery, a Level 3 felony.4 Before trial, the State dismissed
all charges except one murder charge.
[12] Young’s jury trial took place on February 21, 2018. An autopsy of Means was
admitted into evidence and disclosed that Means had suffered multiple stab
wounds to her head, neck, chest, right shoulder, and her forearms. The forensic
pathologist who examined Means’s body testified that the most severe injury
was to the neck. Means’s skull was also fractured from a “deep” and “severe
injury.” Tr. Vol. II at 162. Means’s injuries were consistent with being stabbed
with a knife. Id. at 152-53. A laboratory report was also admitted into
evidence. And a crime scene specialist testified that DNA consistent with
Young’s DNA was found in samples taken from under Means’s fingernails and
on the glass bottle of alcohol found next to Means’s body, and both Young’s
and Means’s blood were on the paper bag containing the bottle of alcohol.
[13] Lane also testified at Young’s trial. She stated that, although she had been
diagnosed with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and depression, she was taking
prescribed medication for these conditions both on the date of trial and on the
date that Means was killed. Lane had known Means for approximately a year
2
I.C. § 35-42-1-1(1) and (2).
3
I.C. § 35-42-5-1.
4
Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-845 | October 17, 2018 Page 5 of 9
before Means’s death. According to Lane’s testimony, on November 17,
Means, Lane, and Young had dinner together at Holy Cross, which Lane
described as a “homeless food place.” Id. at 59. After dinner, Lane walked to
her apartment to watch TV. Her cousin, boyfriend, and her cousin’s friend
were also at her apartment. Lane watched TV for a couple of hours and then
walked around the neighborhood and downtown. When Lane returned to her
apartment, she heard “screaming, fighting, and cursing.” Id. at 65. She looked
in the parking lot behind her apartment and saw Young and Means arguing.
She saw no one else in the parking lot. Lane went into her apartment and could
still hear Young and Means yelling.
[14] After Lane had been in her apartment “for a while[,]” she again went to the
back door of her apartment that overlooked the parking lot where Means lived
in her make-shift camp. Id. at 67. Lane saw Young walk toward his personal
tent that was close to the parking lot in which Means had set up camp. Lane
went to the parking lot to talk to Means, and Young then returned to Means’s
camp. Young and Means began to argue again, and Lane went back to her
building and into her apartment. Lane then heard screaming, ran outside
again, and saw Young stabbing Means with a knife. Lane then saw Young
walk away and leave the parking lot, heading downtown. After Young left the
scene, Lane went to check on Means and saw that she was bloodied and
covered by a sheet. Lane testified that she then called the police and, when they
arrived, she told them what she had seen.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-845 | October 17, 2018 Page 6 of 9
[15] On cross-examination of Lane, Young’s lawyer brought out several
inconsistencies between Lane’s trial testimony, her earlier deposition testimony,
and her prior statement to the police. Those inconsistencies related to the
timing and location of events leading up to the murder, the type of knife Young
used to stab Means, what type of alcoholic beverage Young was drinking while
arguing with Means, and when and how the crime was reported to the police.
[16] On February 22, 2018, the jury found Young guilty of murdering Means. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[17] Young challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for
murder. Our standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence is well-
settled:
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to
support a criminal conviction, we neither reweigh evidence nor
judge witness credibility. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005
(Ind. 2009). “We consider only the evidence supporting the
judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
such evidence.” Id. We will affirm if there is substantial
evidence of probative value such that a reasonable trier of fact
could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id.
Clemons v. State, 996 N.E.2d 1282, 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
Moreover, “[a] conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence alone so
long as there are reasonable inferences enabling the factfinder to find the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-845 | October 17, 2018 Page 7 of 9
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Lawrence v. State, 959 N.E.2d
385, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citation omitted), trans. denied.
[18] To support Young’s conviction of murder, the State was required to show that
Young (1) knowingly or intentionally (2) killed (3) Means. I.C. § 35-42-1-1(1).
The State provided evidence that Lane saw Young stab Means, causing
Means’s death. It also provided evidence that Young’s DNA was found at the
scene of the crime and under Means’s fingernails and that Young’s and Means’s
blood were on the bag containing a bottle found next to Means’s dead body.
And the State provided additional circumstantial evidence of Young’s hostile
encounter with a Family Dollar employee earlier that evening, Young’s three-
week disappearance after Means’s murder, and Young’s suspicious behavior at
Albright’s ministry when he returned there. That was sufficient evidence to
support Young’s conviction.
[19] However, Young contends that Lane’s testimony was “incredibly dubious.”
This court has recently addressed the rule of incredible dubiousity:
We may, and ordinarily do, uphold findings of guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt supported only by the uncorroborated
testimony of a single witness, even the victim’s. Bailey v. State,
979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012). We may make an exception,
however, if that testimony is incredibly dubious. Moore v. State,
27 N.E.3d 749, 754 (Ind. 2015). An appellant seeking
application of the incredible dubiosity rule must show that the
judgment against him was based on the testimony of a single
witness, unsupported by any circumstantial evidence, which was
inherently improbable or inherently contradictory, equivocal, or
coerced. Id. at 755-56. Though the standard is “not impossible”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-845 | October 17, 2018 Page 8 of 9
to meet, it is “difficult.” Id. at 756 (internal quotation and
citation omitted). The challenged testimony must be so
ambiguous, inconsistent, convoluted, or contrary to human
experience that no reasonable person could credit it. Id. (citing
cases so holding).
C.S. v. State, 71 N.E.3d 848, 851 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (emphasis added).
[20] The incredible dubiosity rule does not apply in this case because Lane was not
the sole witness and there was circumstantial evidence in addition to Lane’s
testimony. Police officers testified as to their investigations, including Young’s
hostility earlier in the evening at a Family Dollar store; expert witnesses
testified regarding Young’s DNA and blood that were found at the scene of the
crime and under Means’s fingernails; and Albright testified about Young’s
three-week disappearance and his suspicious behavior upon his return. It was
the jury’s responsibility to weigh that evidence and resolve any conflicts. See
Carter v. State, 44 N.E.3d 47, 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (“In the absence of
incredibly dubious testimony, we will not impinge on the fact-finder’s
responsibility to judge witness credibility.”); Scott v. State, 867 N.E.2d 690, 694
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“We must respect the jury’s exclusive province to weigh
conflicting evidence.”), trans. denied.
[21] The State provided sufficient evidence to support Young’s conviction of
murder.
[22] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-845 | October 17, 2018 Page 9 of 9