Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1606-CR-1492 | February 22, 2017 Page 1 of 12

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this 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

Jeffrey E. Kimmell

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Larry D. Allen

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Alberto Cruz,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

February 22, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

71A03-1606-CR-1492

Appeal from the St. Joseph 

Superior Court

The Honorable John M. 

Marnocha, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

71D02-1505-MR-3

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1606-CR-1492 | February 22, 2017 Page 2 of 12

Case Summary and Issue

[1] Following a jury trial, Alberto Cruz was convicted of murder. Cruz now 

appeals, raising the sole issue of whether the State presented sufficient evidence 

to support his conviction. Concluding the State presented sufficient evidence to 

support his conviction, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Alberto Cruz and Alma Del Real became acquainted with each other in 2013, 

and had been friends ever since. Their relationship was not romantic, and 

Alma considered Cruz to be just a friend. Around 11:00 p.m. on Saturday, 

April 11, 2015, Cruz picked Alma up at her house and the pair went to Brothers 

Bar & Grill in South Bend, Indiana. Unbeknownst to Cruz, Alma had invited 

other friends to the bar as well, including a man with whom she had a “budding 

relationship,” Edgar Medina. Transcript at 229. According to Medina, Cruz 

was not very sociable that evening and he felt like Cruz had no desire to speak 

to him.

[3] Alma had also planned on meeting her friend, Dejah Browning, at Brothers. 

Dejah arrived at Brothers a little after midnight and shortly thereafter, Cruz, 

Alma, Medina, and Dejah decided to continue their night at a dance club, 

Studio Rumba’s. Alma previously worked at Studio Rumba’s and was well 

acquainted with the staff and security personnel. Upon arrival, Alma greeted 

Eric Laudeman, a police officer for the City of Mishawaka who often works as 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1606-CR-1492 | February 22, 2017 Page 3 of 12

a security guard at Studio Rumba’s. Officer Laudeman noted Cruz seemed 

angry the entire night. As Alma would go around the room and converse with 

different people, Cruz stood behind her scowling and giving dirty looks. Officer 

Laudeman considered it “very awkward” and was “expecting a problem.” Id.

at 200. As the night progressed, Alma pulled Dejah into the bathroom to ask 

for advice about Cruz. According to Dejah, Alma asked her for advice about 

Cruz because “he kept wanting to further their friendship into a relationship, 

and she didn’t want that.” Id. at 212. Dejah advised Alma to “just tell him 

how you feel.” Id. At 3:00 a.m., Cruz and Alma left Studio Rumba’s in Cruz’s 

truck.

[4] The next morning, Alma was supposed to drive to Chicago with her friend and 

business partner, Crystal Rangel, but Alma never showed up. Rangel 

attempted to call Alma multiple times and drove to her house and knocked on 

the door, but she received no response. As the day progressed, Alma’s family 

became increasingly worried about her, as she often responded rapidly to phone

calls and texts. Alma’s aunt also tried to contact her friends to ask if they had 

heard from her, but she had no luck. 

[5] On Monday, April 13, 2015, Alma’s aunt filed a missing person’s report with 

the South Bend Police Department. Later that day, Officer Sienna Valdez 

spoke with Cruz at the police station to inquire about Alma’s disappearance. 

Cruz told Officer Valdez he dropped Alma off at her home shortly after leaving 

Studio Rumba’s, drove home, and went to bed. On April 15, Officer Jennifer 

Gobel interviewed Cruz. Cruz generally repeated the same story he told Officer 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1606-CR-1492 | February 22, 2017 Page 4 of 12

Valdez, although this time he added Alma had danced with an “unknown 

Brazilian person” at Studio Rumba’s. Id. at 281. Cruz also stated he received a 

Facetime call from Alma around 3:44 a.m. as he was driving home, which he 

declined to answer.

[6] On May 18, 2015, Officer Gobel and F.B.I. Special Agent Tom Weber 

interviewed Cruz for a third time. Cruz repeated the same story he told earlier, 

although Officer Gobel recognized a discrepancy. This time, Cruz stated he 

missed Alma’s Facetime call, not that he declined it. On May 20, Officer 

Gobel and Agent Weber interviewed Cruz again and confronted him with 

evidence he was not telling the truth. A search warrant executed on Cruz’s 

phone showed on the morning of April 12, 2015, Cruz was not asleep in his bed 

as he claimed. The cellular data and location services collected from Cruz’s 

phone showed Cruz’s phone remained connected to a cellular tower that 

encompassed an area that included Alma’s home and Studio Rumba’s, but not 

Cruz’s home, from 2:11 a.m. to 6:33 a.m. From 6:33 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., Cruz’s 

phone connected to several other cellular towers in a path leading south out of 

South Bend and ending near Lake Maxincuckee in Culver, Indiana. Cruz 

continued to deny he left South Bend and remained steadfast in his assertion he 

was asleep in bed with his phone in his room.

[7] After several hours of denial, Cruz requested to speak to Agent Weber alone, a 

discussion Agent Weber later detailed at trial:

[Agent Weber]: In the first story, he told me that either her or 

her family owed a lot of money to a Mexican 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1606-CR-1492 | February 22, 2017 Page 5 of 12

cartel. And that the Latin Kings that were 

connected with the Mexican cartel, were 

waiting for Alma when he dropped her off. 

They grabbed Alma and told him just to 

leave. Which he then said that he walked 

home. Then he said he woke up the next 

morning, looked down the street and saw his 

truck parked just down the street.

* * *

[State]: And what did his story evolve to from there?

[Agent Weber]: I confronted him of the unlikelihood of that 

story being true. And then he changed and 

went on to several other stories. One story 

was that he saw someone . . . or that 

someone had drugged him . . . or given Alma 

a rophy [sic], and then he watched as that 

person carried her out of the house. Another 

story was that he tried to accuse the exboyfriend. He said that when they got to 

Alma’s house the ex-boyfriend was waiting 

there . . . [a]nd he could only assume that the 

ex-boyfriend had something to do with it.

* * *

[State]: Did he tell you anything else on that day?

[Agent Weber]: Yes, he told me that he stayed at the house a 

little while with Alma and they just talked, it 

was just the two of them. Then they told me 

that she was at a barn, that somebody had 

taken her to a barn.

[State]: And did you confront him about that story?

[Agent Weber]: Yes, I told him it was very unlikely that that’s 

what really occurred. Then he admitted to 

me that he had just been lying to me, because 

he didn’t know what to say.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1606-CR-1492 | February 22, 2017 Page 6 of 12

Id. at 360-62. Agent Weber then asked Cruz if he knew where Alma was, to 

which he responded he did and he could take Agent Weber there. As they left 

the police station, Cruz directed them on a forty-five-minute drive south, 

stopping on a dirt road outside of Culver. Cruz pointed into the woods and 

stated, “[s]he’s right out there.” Id. at 364. A short distance from the road, 

Agent Weber found Alma’s body. When they returned to the police station, the 

interview continued.

[State]: So what did he tell you at Metro Homicide?

[Agent Weber]: Well, first he told me that he did take the 

body down there, but he was directed by a 

South American. His story was when they 

left the bar, they want [sic] to Alma’s house. 

And that this guy he didn’t know, other than 

a South American, was there waiting. Then 

Alma and the South American went up to her 

bedroom and Mr. Cruz stayed in the living 

room and fell asleep on the couch. Then at 

some point he was woken up from a big 

thump coming from Alma’s bedroom. He 

ran up to the room and saw the South 

American on top of Alma strangling her.

* * *

[State]: Did he come off of that story?

[Agent Weber]: Eventually he did, yes.

[State]: And what did he tell you then?

[Agent Weber]: He eventually told me that he was the one 

who actually . . . that he hit her, and that he 

did strangle her.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1606-CR-1492 | February 22, 2017 Page 7 of 12

Id. at 365-66. Cruz also told Agent Weber when he and Alma arrived at her 

house, they had “rough sex” which was consensual. Exhibit 48 at 62:36. Cruz 

claimed Alma attempted to blackmail him after they had sex and stated she 

would tell the police he raped her unless he paid her five to ten thousand 

dollars. When he tried to leave, she began to scratch, shove, and punch him. 

He became angry and hit her twice in the face and shoved her to the ground. 

He claimed when she fell, she hit the back of her head on the hardwood floor 

and remained unresponsive. Cruz claimed he checked Alma for a pulse and felt

nothing, so he put his hands around her neck until he left handprints in an 

attempt to cover up his accident.

[8] On May 22, 2015, the State charged Cruz with murder. At trial, Dr. Elizabeth 

Douglas, the forensic pathologist who examined Alma’s body, stated that due 

to the decomposition of the body she could not verify the cause of death; 

however, the circumstances were sufficiently suspicious to warrant a ruling of 

homicide. She stated she ruled out natural causes and blunt trauma to the liver, 

kidneys, and lungs, although she could not rule out strangulation as a cause of 

death. Dr. Douglas further stated after examining Alma’s skull, she did not 

identify any injuries to her head. When asked if a fall stemming from a shove 

could inflict fatal injury, she stated, “[i]f the force imparted was great enough to 

inflict lethal head trauma, I would expect to see skeletal injuries with it. It’s 

possible that they wouldn’t be there, but in general, if you’re going to have a 

subdural in a young person, that’s usually accompanied by a skull fracture.” Id.

at 392. The State also offered the testimony of Zachary Gadacz, who met Cruz 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1606-CR-1492 | February 22, 2017 Page 8 of 12

in a holding cell while awaiting an arraignment. Gadacz stated Cruz told him 

he choked Alma because “she rejected him sexually.” Id. at 422. When he 

asked Cruz if it was worth it, he stated, “[e]very last second of it.” Id. at 423.

[9] Cruz also testified at trial and stuck to his same general story but added some 

minor changes. Cruz testified he and Alma returned to her house after leaving 

Studio Rumba’s and recapped the evening. As he walked downstairs to leave, 

he received a Facetime call from Alma, which he declined to answer. As he 

returned upstairs to see why she called him, he claimed she began kissing him

and they had sexual intercourse. After, as he got dressed to leave, he claimed 

Alma told him he owed her money, which he first assumed was a joke. He 

attempted to leave, but Alma began punching, pushing, and scratching him. 

Cruz then stated he became angry and punched her twice in her face and 

shoved her to the ground as hard as he could. Cruz also stated when he choked 

Alma, he thought she was already dead. When asked how telling the police he 

choked her after he thought she was dead would help him, Cruz stated, “I was 

just . . . just saying stuff. I mean . . . it was too much pressure.” Id. at 507.

[10] A jury found Cruz guilty of murder.1 Cruz now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

 

1 The jury was instructed on murder, voluntary manslaughter, and reckless homicide.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1606-CR-1492 | February 22, 2017 Page 9 of 12

[11] Cruz challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his murder 

conviction. The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well 

settled. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the 

witnesses, and we respect “the jury’s exclusive province to weigh conflicting 

evidence.” Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625, 627 (Ind. 2001). We “consider 

only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.” 

McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). We will affirm a conviction

“if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence 

could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond 

a reasonable doubt.” Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111-12 (Ind. 2000).

[12] To convict Cruz of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally killed Alma. Ind. Code § 

35-42-1-1(1). A person’s conduct is intentional if, when he engages in the 

conduct, it is his “conscious objective to do so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(a). A 

person acts knowingly if, when he engages in the conduct, he is “aware of a 

high probability that he is doing so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b). 

[13] Cruz asserts the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because “[t]he 

State did not produce any evidence suggesting that it was [Cruz’s] conscious 

objective to kill [Alma]. Nor did the State produce any evidence that there was 

a high probability that [Alma] could die as a result of [Cruz] punching her and 

pushing her to the ground.” Brief of Appellant-Defendant at 13. Cruz’s 

argument proceeds on the assumption the jury believed his testimony Alma 

died from being punched and shoved to the ground. The jury was not required 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1606-CR-1492 | February 22, 2017 Page 10 of 12

to believe or give weight to this testimony, and given the numerous lies, halftruths, and versions of events told by Cruz, it is not surprising it did not. 

[14] Further, we note it is well-established knowledge or intent may be inferred from 

the facts and circumstances of the case. Johnson v. State, 837 N.E.2d 209, 214 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. The evidence supporting the verdict shows 

that on April 11, 2015, Cruz and Alma went out with friends. Cruz was in an 

unsociable and unpleasant mood whenever Alma would talk to other people at 

the bar. At one point in the evening, Alma asked her friend for advice on what 

to do about Cruz because he wanted to transform their friendship into a 

relationship and she did not. When the night was over, Cruz drove Alma back 

to her home and was the last one to see her alive. A month later, following 

several interviews and a number of lies told to the police, Cruz finally admitted 

he punched Alma twice in the face, shoved her to the ground, choked her until 

his handprints were visible on her neck, and dumped her body in a woods out 

of town. In subsequent interviews with police, Cruz repeatedly referenced 

strangling, choking, or placing his hands on Alma’s neck after he shoved her to 

the ground. Cruz then led police to where he dumped Alma’s body in the 

woods near Culver. Dr. Douglas could not pinpoint a cause of death due to 

decomposition of the body, but she could not rule out strangulation. And while 

Cruz claims Alma died after he punched her and shoved her to the ground, Dr. 

Douglas stated she found no injuries to Alma’s skull, as she would expect to

find in a fatal head injury. We conclude the State presented sufficient evidence 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1606-CR-1492 | February 22, 2017 Page 11 of 12

for a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt Cruz knowingly or 

intentionally killed Alma.

[15] Cruz also claims he acted in sudden heat, and as such, his conviction should be 

reduced to voluntary manslaughter. A person who knowingly or intentionally 

kills another human being while acting under sudden heat commits voluntary 

manslaughter. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-3(a)(1). “Sudden heat” is characterized as 

“anger, rage, resentment, or terror sufficient to obscure the reason of an 

ordinary person, preventing deliberation and premeditation, excluding malice, 

and rendering a person incapable of cool reflection.” Dearman v. State, 743 

N.E.2d 757, 760 (Ind. 2001). The existence of sudden heat is a question of fact 

to be determined by the jury. Jackson v. State, 709 N.E.2d 326, 329 (Ind. 1999). 

Cruz asserts he acted in sudden heat when he struck Alma and shoved her to 

the ground because she demanded money after they had sex and attacked him 

when he refused. The only testimony supporting this version of events is Cruz’s 

own testimony, which the jury was entitled to credit and weigh. The jury either 

concluded Cruz’s story was not credible, or his version of events did not rise to 

the level of sudden heat. Either way, this determination was for the jury to 

make, and we cannot reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility on 

appeal. Alkhalidi, 753 N.E.2d at 627.

Conclusion

[16] We conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to support Cruz’s 

conviction for murder. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1606-CR-1492 | February 22, 2017 Page 12 of 12

[17] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Barnes, J., concur.