Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1504-CR-209 | November 19, 2015 Page 1 of 6

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

Kurt A. Young

Nashville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Karl Scharnberg

Deputy Attorney General

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Zachary L. Ray,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

November 19, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1504-CR-209

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court, Criminal Division 2

The Honorable Marc Rothenberg, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G02-1308-MR-52125

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1504-CR-209 | November 19, 2015 Page 2 of 6

[1] Zachary L. Ray appeals his conviction of Murder,1 a felony. Relying on the 

doctrine of incredible dubiosity, Ray contends that the evidence was insufficient 

to support his conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On April 8, 2013, Lori McKinney went to a friend’s home on the south side of 

Indianapolis. Ray and Richard Mays were inside using crack cocaine. This 

was McKinney’s first time meeting Ray. The men asked McKinney to help 

them “hit a lick”, and Ray outlined the plan. Transcript at 54. In exchange for 

five Vicodin pills, McKinney agreed to lure a man out of a bar for Ray and 

Mays to rob.

[4] The trio drove in McKinney’s truck to a local bar, the Colonial Inn, that 

evening. McKinney backed into the parking spot and then went inside, while 

Mays and Ray waited outside. McKinney encountered Mark Putnam in the 

bar, and he bought her a beer. Putnam eventually left the bar with McKinney, 

and his friend, Tony Ventura, exited at the same time. Before Putnam entered 

McKinney’s truck to leave with her, he noticed two men hiding in the bed of 

the truck. He immediately refused to go with McKinney and, instead, went to 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1504-CR-209 | November 19, 2015 Page 3 of 6

Ventura’s vehicle for a ride home. After Ventura circled around the bar, he 

noticed that McKinney’s truck was gone.

[5] Indeed, McKinney, Ray, and Mays had moved the truck to a parking lot across 

the street. Ray instructed McKinney to go back inside the bar and try again. 

When she expressed hesitation, Ray threatened, “Bitch, you’re going back in.” 

Id. at 60. McKinney went back into the bar and eventually began conversing 

with Michael Campbell. At one point, McKinney observed Ray and Mays 

standing at each entrance. McKinney eventually asked Campbell if he wanted 

to go to another nearby bar with her, and he agreed.

[6] Upon exiting the bar after midnight, McKinney walked in front of Campbell as 

she led him to her truck. Mays and Ray approached Campbell from behind, 

and Mays punched Campbell in the back of the head. Campbell fell to the 

ground without moving and Ray started kicking him. Mays and Ray then went 

through Campbell’s pockets, removing his wallet and cell phone. McKinney 

entered her truck and Mays and Ray followed. Mays had Campbell’s phone, 

and Ray had his wallet. McKinney drove them away from the scene, as the 

men expressed disappointment with the amount of money obtained.

[7] Shortly thereafter, a police officer patrolling the area discovered Campbell, who 

was lying on the ground unconscious with his pockets inside out. Campbell 

remained in a coma and died on May 13 as a result of the blunt force trauma to 

his head that he sustained during the attack. In addition to a skull fracture to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1504-CR-209 | November 19, 2015 Page 4 of 6

the back of his head and a broken jaw, Campbell had contusions on his body 

that were consistent with being kicked or punched.

[8] The police investigation led to the arrest of McKinney on April 19. At that

time, she provided a statement to police, denying involvement and indicating 

that she had witnessed three unknown men attack Campbell outside the bar.

[9] On June 11, Ray was arrested on an unrelated matter and volunteered 

information regarding this case while being interrogated by police. He 

indicated that he knew about Richard Mays robbing and killing a man about 

two months earlier in a parking lot at the Colonial Inn. Ray stated that Mays 

punched the man in the head before robbing him of about thirty dollars, and 

that a girl named Lori was in jail for the robbery. Ray explained that he 

witnessed the robbery while sitting with Lori in her truck.

[10] Thereafter, on July 24, McKinney gave another statement to police in which 

she implicated both Mays and Ray. McKinney agreed to testify for the State in 

exchange for a favorable plea agreement.

[11] The State charged Ray and Mays with felony murder and class A felony 

robbery on August 9, 2013. Ray’s jury trial commenced on February 23, 2015. 

The State called a number of witnesses, including McKinney, Putnam, Ventura, 

and John Cline. Cline testified regarding conversations he had with Ray while 

they were incarcerated together. Ray asked Cline for advice and shared 

significant details with Cline regarding the robbery. These details, to which 

Cline testified, aligned in large part with McKinney’s account and implicated 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1504-CR-209 | November 19, 2015 Page 5 of 6

Ray in the planning and execution of the robbery. Additionally, the State 

admitted into evidence a photograph of McKinney leaving the bar with the 

victim shortly before the attack and Ray’s June 11 statement.

[12] The jury found Ray guilty of murder and robbery as charged. At the sentencing 

hearing on March 18, 2015, the trial court vacated the robbery conviction and 

sentenced Ray to sixty-three years in prison for Campbell’s murder.

Discussion & Decision

[13] Ray contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for 

murder. More specifically, he contends that McKinney’s testimony is

incredibly dubious and should not be credited. 

[14] Our Supreme Court has recently reiterated the limited scope of the incredible 

dubiosity rule, which requires that there be: “1) a sole testifying witness; 2) 

testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion; 

and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence.” Moore v. State, 27 

N.E.3d 749, 756 (Ind. 2015). While the standard is not impossible to meet, it is 

difficult and “one that requires great ambiguity and inconsistency in the 

evidence.” Id. (quoting Edwards v. State, 753 N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ind. 2001)). In 

other words, the sole witness’s testimony “must be so convoluted and/or 

contrary to human experience that no reasonable person could believe it.” Id. 

(quoting Edwards, 753 N.E.2d at 622).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1504-CR-209 | November 19, 2015 Page 6 of 6

[15] There was nothing about McKinney’s testimony that was equivocal or 

inherently contradictory. She consistently testified regarding the attack and 

robbery of Campbell. Further, the inconsistencies between her trial testimony 

and her initial statement to police did not render her trial testimony incredibly 

dubious. See Stephenson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 463 (Ind. 2001). 

[16] Moreover, the State presented additional witnesses and circumstantial evidence 

that supported McKinney’s detailed testimony. This included Ray’s own 

statement to police, pictures of McKinney leaving the bar with Campbell, and 

the testimony of Putnam, Ventura, and Cline.

[17] The incredible dubiosity rule is simply not applicable here, and it was within the 

jury’s prerogative to believe McKinney’s trial testimony. Accordingly, we reject 

Ray’s invitation to reweigh the evidence and judge witness credibility. See 

Maxwell v. State, 731 N.E.2d 459, 462 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (“[i]t is the function 

of the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in testimony, and to determine the weight 

of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses”), trans. denied. Ray’s

conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.

[18] Judgment affirmed.

[19] Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.