Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Court of Appeals of Indiana hears cases all over the state as part of its Appeals on Wheels program.
On Monday, the court heard oral arguments at one of the largest event venues in the state, as the Indiana Pacers welcomed the appellate court to Gainbridge Fieldhouse.
The appellate court was approached by Danny Lopez, vice president for external affairs and corporate communications at Pacers Sports and Entertainment, about hosting arguments at Gainbridge.
“We’re really proud of this program. We’re proud of the court, it’s a good opportunity even for our staff to learn about the judiciary here in Indiana,” Lopez said. “I think a lot of people don’t have a full understanding of everything that goes on in the judiciary and all that happens. This is a good educational opportunity, I think, for all of us.”
Six high schools traveled to hear the arguments, along with students from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law and other community members.
The audience was reminded before the arguments began that it is a real case involving real people in the community.
The case — Tyreontay Jackson v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-2679 — was heard by Chief Judge Robert Altice, Judge Nancy Vaidik and Judge Dana Kenworthy.
In July 2020, a shooting happened at the Indiana State Fairgrounds involving Freddie Hegwood, Victor Griffin and other members of the KTG gang.
The KTG and the IMG gang have a rivalry, which sparked the shooting. The gangs had been taunting each other by text and social media.
Then in December 2020, Hegwood and Griffin were in a Jeep parked in front of a house in Brownsburg around the time children were returning from school.
A black Impala drove past the Jeep and fired several rounds into the vehicle. Hegwood was killed, and there were bullet holes in the hood of Griffins sweatshirt and in the headrest of his seat.
The state charged Jackson with being an accomplice to murder and attempted murder.
At trial, the Hendricks Circuit Court overruled Jackson’s hearsay objections and allowed the state to introduce evidence of text messages between various people whom the state characterized as co-conspirators, as well as rap lyrics by a co-defendant.
The jury found Jackson guilty of murder and attempted murder. He was sentenced to 143 years.
Representing Jackson at Monday’s oral arguments, Lisa Manning argued that exhibits admitted during trial that were used to prove Jackson’s involvement were matters of hearsay.
Vaidik asked for clarification on whether it was a gang war involving teenagers.
Manning confirmed that it was, but that her client was an adult while the others were juveniles.
She argued that screenshots of text messages to Jackson threatening his daughter were hearsay because there was no proof that Jackson received the texts or responded.
“There has to be evidence other than the statement to prove that there was a conspiracy in this case,” Manning said.
The second point to Manning’s argument was that there was insufficient evidence that Jackson had a specific intent to kill Griffin.
The state argued that the evidence was not hearsay and went on to discuss the rap lyrics, which described Griffin as being on the “dead list.”
The state used this to show Jackson’s intent to kill.
“I think that he was using these to continue to bolster his group’s reputation for violence to show that they were willing to kill their enemies and that they had killed them,” Tyler Banks, an attorney with the Office of the Indiana Attorney General, said.
Banks claimed that the screenshot of the text message was used for the fact that it was stated and not for the truth of the matter asserted.
“But the actual content of the message itself doesn’t have a truth value and can’t be admitted to the truth of the matter asserted, because it’s making no assertion and saying nothing that is susceptible of being true or false,” Banks said.
He further added in his arguments that by shooting into the car, the intent was to kill all the passengers, not just one.
“When you shoot indiscriminately into a vehicle that has two people, you intend to kill all,” Banks said.
During Manning’s rebuttal, she went over her argument that there was insufficient evidence of attempted murder.
Altice asked whether she was willing to make the concession that her client was one of the four members in the car. Manning confirmed that, according to cellphone analysis data, it put Jackson in the neighborhood at the time of the shooting.
She noted that the appellate court has in the past found that firing a deadly weapon can establish an intent to kill, but the jury during trial didn’t find that Jackson had possessed a weapon that day.
“The true question is whether or not he was an accomplice to that specific intent to kill. That’s something that the state did not prove,” Manning said.
After the oral arguments concluded, the appellate judges held a question-and-answer session with the audience.
Students asked questions such as how many times a case can be appealed and how the judges became judges.
New Palestine High School social studies teacher Gina Iacobucci said she was glad to bring her students because they are high school seniors who may be looking at a future legal career.
“I really liked that they get to see careers that they could possibly have in future, especially because I have seniors, they’re thinking about going into some of these things. Some of them are studying law or political science, so I think it’s helpful for them to see that it’s attainable,” Iacobucci said.
She attended an oral argument last spring and said she was glad she could attend another event.
“I just think they’re a great learning activity for the students because they’re really engaging. And that’s not something I can teach in the classroom. You know, they have to see it with themselves,” Iacobucci said.
Her students, Jacob Collins and Evan Nelson, said they were able to understand what was happening because the attorneys and judges were explaining the case and legal terms clearly.
“I thought was pretty cool being able to see the process,” Collins said.
Nelson agreed with Collins and added that he found he could easily follow what was going on.
“It was incredible how relatable it was — sort of like wasn’t very legal like you’d think, like you can understand what’s going on,” Nelson said.
Na’Shia Jones, a student at Charles A. Tindley Accelerated School, said she found the event interesting.
“I thought was cool. It was a new experience for me. I never really thought about law or law shows but it was really interesting,” Jones said.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.