Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Despite an improper jury instruction, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has upheld murder and attempted robbery convictions in a case involving a drug deal turned deadly.
In May 2021, appellant-defendant Marques Hardiman texted his friend Christian Edmon asking if he could “front” him some marijuana. Edmon declined and said he needed to purchase some himself.
Hardiman arranged to purchase marijuana from Emanuel Fonville the next day, then texted Edmon that he found someone they could steal a quarter-pound of marijuana from. Edmon wanted more information, and Hardiman said he would be meeting someone from Snapchat at 4:30 p.m. in Brownsburg.
Fonville and his girlfriend, Giovanna Hines, drove to a Kroger parking lot to meet Hardiman, who drove to the meeting spot with Edmon. When they arrived, Hardiman got out of the vehicle and into the back seat of Fonville’s car.
Hardiman asked to see the marijuana, which Fonville showed him before asking to see the money. Hardiman then exited the car and returned to the Chrysler that Edmon was driving.
Both Edmon and Hardiman then got out of the Chrysler and into the back of Fonville’s car. Edmon was wearing a ski mask.
Hardiman asked if the marijuana was in the amount he had requested, and Fonville weighed it on a scale. When Fonville said, “It’s all there,” Hardiman grabbed the marijuana, and so did Fonville.
As the two struggled over the marijuana, Hardiman pulled out a handgun and shot Fonville in the chest. Hardiman and Edmon then fled the scene in the Chrysler.
At the time, Brooks Vossler was eating his lunch in the Kroger parking. Vossler heard the shooting and saw the Chrysler drive away, so he wrote down the license plate number and went to Fonville’s aid.
Meanwhile, Hines, Fonville’s girlfriend, called 911 and hid the marijuana in the trunk of the car.
Fonville was transported to the hospital in an ambulance. He ultimately died as a result of the gunshot wound.
Police didn’t find any guns or other weapons in Fonville’s car but did find the marijuana.
The same day of the shooting, Hardiman deleted his Snapchat account and either deleted or deactivated his other social media accounts.
Later that evening, Edmon sent Hardiman a link to a news story about the shooting. Hardiman shared the link with his girlfriend.
Hardiman disassembled the handgun and disposed of the pieces in various locations.
The police were able to identify Hardiman as a suspect from the license plate number that Vossler had written down as well as information from Hines.
Brownsburg Police Department Cpt. Jennifer Barrett interviewed Hardiman, who admitted that he planned to buy marijuana from Fonville. But Hardiman also claimed Fonville reached for a gun and demanded money, and only then did Hardiman pull his own gun and open fire.
Hardiman was charged with murder, felony murder and attempted robbery resulting in serious bodily injury.
At his trial in October 2022, the state admitted printouts of text messages between Hardiman and Edmon, which showed they had planned a robbery.
Hardiman objected to the admission of the messages, arguing they were unduly prejudicial, were evidence of prior bad acts and were inadmissible hearsay. The state argued the messages showed contrary intent to rebut Hardiman’s claim of self-defense and to show motive.
The Hendricks Circuit Court overruled Hardiman’s objection.
Later, Hardiman objected to the trial court’s jury instruction on self-defense, which the trial court also overruled.
The jury then found Hardiman guilty as charged, although the trial court vacated the felony murder conviction due to double jeopardy concerns. Hardiman was sentenced to an executed term of 50 years on the murder conviction, which was enhanced by 10 years for the use of a firearm, and a consecutive term of three years on the attempted robbery conviction.
The first issue Hardiman brought before the Court of Appeals was whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence under Indiana Eviction Rule 404(b) — specifically, the text messages exchanged between him and his accomplice regarding a previously planned robbery.
The appellate court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the text messages to rebut Hardiman’s claim of self-defense.
Hardiman had cited Gillespie v. State, 832 N.E.2d 1112 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), where a defendant had stabbed and killed the victim during a fight.
The state had presented evidence that the defendant had been drinking alcohol to show the “state of mind.” On appeal, the court held that such evidence was irrelevant.
“In contrast, the evidence at issue here — Hardiman’s planning of an almost identical robbery just weeks prior to the robbery of Fonville — was highly relevant of Hardiman’s intent, i.e., whether he merely planned to purchase marijuana or whether he intended to rob Fonville,” Judge Elizabeth Tavitas wrote in a footnote.
The second issue brought to the COA was whether the trial court abused its discretion in instructing the jury on the availability of the defense of self-defense, and if so, whether it was harmless error.
The instruction was incorrect but the error was harmless, the COA ruled, citing Gammons v. State, 148 N.E. 3d 301 (Ind. 2020).
“Here, the trial court’s instruction includes the proper language from Gammons: ‘a person may not use force if he is committing a crime and there is an immediate causal connection between the crime and the confrontation,’” Tavitas wrote. “But it also contains the improper ‘but for’ language disapproved of in Gammons: ‘for the Defendant to lose the right of self-defense the jury must find that but for the Defendant’s commission of a separate crime, the confrontation resulting in injury to Emanuel Fonville would not have occurred.’”
Even so, “Here, the evidence was overwhelming that Hardiman and Edmon planned to meet with Fonville to rob him, not that Hardiman merely planned to purchase marijuana from Fonville,” Tavitas continued. “… We, therefore, conclude that the jury’s verdict would have been the same under a proper instruction.”
Judges Leanna Weissmann and Dana Kenworthy concurred in Marques D. Hardiman v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-2993.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.