ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
KATHERINE A. CORNELIUS KAREN M. FREEMAN-WILSON
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
ADAM DULIK
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
RENE MAJORS, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
) Supreme Court Cause Number
v. ) 49S00-0004-CR-254
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
CRIMINAL DIVISION 5
The Honorable Gary L. Miller, Judge
Cause No. 49G05-9805-CF-083454
ON DIRECT APPEAL
June 6, 2001
RUCKER, Justice
Following a jury trial, Rene Majors was convicted of murder and
robbery in connection with the beating death of her eighty-four-year-old
former landlord Roberta Higginson. In this direct appeal, Majors raises
two issues for our review: (1) is the evidence sufficient to support her
murder conviction; and (2) did the trial court err by allowing into
evidence testimony concerning an incident that occurred between Mrs.
Higginson and Majors two days before the murder.
The evidence is sufficient and finding no error, we affirm the trial
court.
Facts
The facts most favorable to the verdict show that in the early morning
hours of May 15, 1998, Majors approached William Rivers at an Indianapolis
liquor store and told him that she wanted to “get high,” but she did not
have any money. R. at 286. Majors said that she was going to the home of
Roberta Higginson, her eighty-four-year-old former landlord, “to get some
money.” R. at 286. She invited Rivers to go with her, and he agreed.
When they arrived at Mrs. Higginson’s home, she let them both inside.
Majors talked with Mrs. Higginson in the living room, and after some time
had passed, Majors picked up a beer stein and struck Mrs. Higginson in the
head three or four times. Majors then stated that Mrs. Higginson had “a
lot of money and guns” in the house, and Rivers responded that they should
“get them and get out.” R. at 290.
Rivers left the living room in search of guns. When he returned he
saw Majors strike Mrs. Higginson in the head with a walking cane five or
six times while Mrs. Higginson was sitting in a chair. Mrs. Higginson fell
out of the chair onto the floor, and Majors kicked her.
Majors and Rivers took a blue suitcase, strongbox, money, shotgun shells,
and two guns from Mrs. Higginson’s home. They then sold the guns and used
the proceeds to purchase crack cocaine.
Later that morning, Majors and Rivers returned to Mrs. Higginson’s
home to retrieve a hat and hairpiece they had left behind. Mrs. Higginson
was still lying on the floor by the chair. Majors and Rivers moved Mrs.
Higginson’s body to the basement steps. A subsequent autopsy revealed that
Mrs. Higginson died from multiple blunt force injuries to the head.
A jury convicted Majors of murder, felony murder, and robbery. The
trial court vacated the felony murder conviction. The trial court then
ordered Majors to serve consecutive sentences of sixty-five years for the
murder conviction and eight years for the robbery conviction. This direct
appeal followed. Additional facts are set forth below where relevant.
Discussion
I.
Majors first contends the evidence is insufficient to support her
conviction for murder. More specifically, she complains that the testimony
of William Rivers, the only eyewitness to the event, was incredibly dubious
given “his attitude regarding prison time, his career as a professional
liar and the manner in which his memory improved after having access to
crime scene photos and the probable cause affidavit.” Br. of Appellant at
22. Under the incredible dubiosity rule, a court will impinge on a jury’s
responsibility to judge witness credibility
only when confronted with inherently improbable testimony or coerced,
equivocal, wholly uncorroborated testimony of incredible dubiosity.
Tillman v. State, 642 N.E.2d 221, 223 (Ind. 1994). The incredible
dubiosity rule, however, is limited to cases where a sole witness presents
inherently contradictory testimony which is equivocal or the result of
coercion and there is a complete lack of circumstantial evidence of the
defendant’s guilt. Id.
In this case, there is circumstantial evidence of Majors’ guilt. The
police found Majors’ fingerprints in Mrs. Higginson’s home. R. at 585,
589. Further, the police found two blue suitcases, one of which had the
name “R. Higginson” tagged onto it, and a pair of black sweatpants[1]
stained with blood in the basement of Majors’ mother’s house. R. at 553-
54, 739-41. Subsequent DNA testing revealed that the blood on the
sweatpants was that of Mrs. Higginson. R. at 711. Because circumstantial
evidence of Majors’ guilt exists, her reliance on the incredible dubiosity
rule is misplaced. See White v. State, 706 N.E.2d 1078, 1080 (Ind. 1999)
(holding that the incredible dubiosity rule did not apply because there was
circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt, namely, his shirt and
bandana were found near the crime scene). As such, no basis for applying
this rule exists, and Majors’ request simply amounts to an invitation for
us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.
II.
Next, Majors contends the trial court erred by allowing into evidence
testimony concerning an incident that occurred between her and Mrs.
Higginson two days before the
murder. Officer Marvin Barlow of the Indianapolis Police Department
testified to the following events at trial: on May 13, 1998, he was called
to Mrs. Higginson’s home; when he arrived, Mrs. Higginson was in her front
yard screaming and waving a gun; he calmed Mrs. Higginson down and took the
gun from her; Mrs. Higginson told him that Majors had been living with her
three weeks but had not paid any rent and she wanted Majors to leave;
Majors, who was crying and sitting on Mrs. Higginson’s front porch with her
belongings, confirmed that she had not paid any rent; and he helped Majors
move her belongings to another person’s house. R. at 184-89. Majors
contends that Officer Barlow’s testimony is inadmissible because it is
irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The State, on the other hand, maintains
that Officer Barlow’s testimony is admissible to show Majors’ motive.
Relevant evidence is “evidence having any tendency to make the
existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the
action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence.” Ind. Evidence Rule 401. Generally speaking, relevant evidence
is admissible, and irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Evid.R. 402.
“[E]vidence of motive is always relevant in the proof of a crime.” Cook v.
State, 734 N.E.2d 563, 567 (Ind. 2000), reh’g denied. However, relevant
evidence may nevertheless be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Evid.R. 403.
Majors argues that Officer Barlow’s testimony is irrelevant because
“[Mrs. Higginson’s] threat against Ms. Majors did not establish a motive
for any future conduct.” Br. of Appellant at 10. We disagree. Rivers
testified at trial that after he and Majors left Mrs. Higginson’s home the
first time, he asked Majors why she killed Mrs. Higginson. When asked what
Majors’ response to his question was, Rivers testified to the following:
She [Majors] said her and [Mrs.] Higginson had gotten into it about
three days earlier and that [Mrs.] Higginson had pulled a gun on her
and stuck the gun in
her mouth and made her crawl around on the floor for about an hour
until she
was able to convince [Mrs.] Higginson to call the police and the
police came and escorted Rene from [Mrs.] Higginson’s house and took
uh—the gun from [Mrs.] Higginson.
R. at 303. Officer Barlow’s testimony relates to this same event and takes
up, in more detail, where Mrs. Higginson called the police. Together, this
evidence makes it more probable that Majors robbed and killed Mrs.
Higginson in retaliation for Mrs. Higginson’s aggression two days before
the murder.
Additionally, Majors argues that even if Officer Barlow’s testimony is
relevant, it is unfairly prejudicial because “the jury was allowed to
consider her to be a shiftless, irresponsible sort of person.” Br. of
Appellant at 16-17. Again we disagree. Officer Barlow’s testimony focused
primarily, if not exclusively, on Mrs. Higginson’s prior misconduct.
Majors even seems to admit as much, stating in her brief that “[t]he
incident really did not involve any ‘bad act’ by Ms. Majors, since the
evidence merely showed she was Mrs. Higginson’s victim.” Br. of Appellant
at 9. Thus, the probative value of Officer Barlow’s testimony was not
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
The decision to admit evidence is within the sound discretion of the
trial court, and its decision is afforded a great deal of deference on
appeal. Bacher v. State, 686 N.E.2d 791, 793 (Ind. 1997). We will only
reverse a trial court upon a showing that the trial court manifestly abused
its discretion and the defendant was denied a fair trial. Henderson v.
State, 455 N.E.2d 1117, 1119 (Ind. 1983). There was no abuse of discretion
here.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court.
SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur
BOEHM, J., concurs in result.
-----------------------
[1] Rivers testified that Majors wore a “black jogging suit” during
the crime. R. at 361.