Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-385 | December 21, 2016 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

Lisa M. Johnson

Brownsburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Eric Johnson,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 21, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1602-CR-385

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court 

The Honorable Marc T. 

Rothenberg, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G02-1402-MR-6525

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-385 | December 21, 2016 Page 2 of 6

Statement of the Case

[1] Eric Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals his conviction by jury of murder,1 Class B 

felony robbery,2two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement,3 and Class 

A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.4 His sole argument is 

that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions because the State 

failed to establish his identity beyond a reasonable doubt. Concluding that the 

evidence is sufficient, we affirm.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

The sole issue for our review is whether there is sufficient 

evidence to support Johnson’s convictions.

Facts

[3] In February 2014, Dustin Woods (“Woods”) and Michael Norris (“Norris”) 

drove from their home in Brazil, Indiana to Indianapolis in Norris’ 1994 Nissan 

Altima. They intended to sell various items, including antiques, toys, and 

 

1

IND. CODE § 35-42-1-1.

2

I.C. § 35-42-5-1.

3

I.C. § 35-42-3-3.

4

I.C. § 35-47-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-385 | December 21, 2016 Page 3 of 6

electronics at thrift stores and flea markets. They also planned to purchase a 

large amount of marijuana to sell in Brazil. 

[4] When they arrived in the Indianapolis area, the two men checked into a motel

in Plainfield. Woods contacted an acquaintance, Alejandro Mauricio 

(“Mauricio”), who stopped by the motel to visit with Woods while Norris went 

out. Woods told Mauricio that he was trying to find buyers for some Ecstasy. 

Mauricio told Woods that he might know of a buyer. However, Mauricio later 

admitted that he was planning to rob Woods. When Mauricio left the motel 

early the next morning, he texted Johnson the following message: “I got one it 

b[e] ready in a few hours.” (State’s Ex. 71).

[5] Later that morning, Woods and Norris purchased $1500.00 worth of marijuana 

and moved to a less expensive motel on the west side of Indianapolis. A few 

hours later, Mauricio and Johnson arrived at the motel in Mauricio’s car. 

Johnson was wearing a black stocking cap, a black sweat suit, and removable 

metallic teeth. Both men were armed. They went to Woods and Norris’ room, 

brandished their guns, tied up Woods and Norris with duct tape, and robbed 

them.

[6] As soon as Mauricio and Johnson ran out the door, Woods untied himself and 

ran after them. As Woods leaped over the second floor balcony to pursue the 

men, Johnson shot and killed him. Johnson then drove away in Mauricio’s car

with Mauricio’s phone. Mauricio drove away in Norris’ Nissan. However, he 

soon discovered that he had a flat tire. Mauricio was attempting to change the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-385 | December 21, 2016 Page 4 of 6

tire when he noticed a young man walking down the street and asked to use his 

cell phone. Mauricio telephoned Johnson at Mauricio’s number and asked 

Johnson to pick him up.

[7] Before picking up Mauricio, Johnson returned to the east side of Indianapolis to 

the house that he shared with Dramaine Cotton (“Cotton”). Cotton was 

watching television when Johnson came in the house wearing black clothing 

and carrying a brown box. When Cotton asked Johnson where he had gotten

the box, Johnson responded that he had “hit a lick on the west side.” (Tr. 278). 

Johnson changed his clothes, picked up Mauricio, and took him home.

[8] In the meantime, the young man who had lent his cell phone to Mauricio 

noticed the police at the motel and approached them. The young man told the 

officers about the man who had borrowed his phone, and the police were able 

to look up the number that Mauricio had called. Based on this information, the 

police identified Mauricio, who matched a description given by Norris. Norris 

subsequently identified Mauricio in a photo array. 

[9] This information led the police to Mauricio’s house, where the police found 

Johnson and Cotton sitting in a car in front of the house. Johnson slid a gun 

under the front passenger’s seat where he was sitting when he saw the police. 

All three men were taken into custody and interviewed. A search of Johnson’s 

bedroom revealed Norris’ credit and identification cards and phone as well as a 

black stocking cap and a set of metallic teeth. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-385 | December 21, 2016 Page 5 of 6

[10] Johnson was arrested and charged with several counts, including murder, Class 

B felony robbery, two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, and Class 

A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. At trial, Mauricio 

testified that Johnson shot Woods. The evidence further revealed that the gun 

found under Johnson’s seat at the time he was arrested had been used to kill 

Woods. Cell phone records indicated that Johnson’s cell phone had been near 

the motel at the time the murder occurred. In addition, someone had used 

Johnson’s cell phone to search Fox 59 News for information about Woods’ 

murder. Further, a roll of duct tape found in the vehicle Mauricio and Johnson 

drove to the motel matched the duct tape used to bind Woods and Norris. 

[11] The jury convicted Johnson of all counts, and the trial court sentence him to an 

aggregate sentence of ninety-eight years. Johnson now appeals his convictions. 

Decision

[12] Johnson argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions

because the State failed to establish his identity beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well settled. 

We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting 

the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not 

reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We will affirm the 

conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the crime 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is sufficient if an 

inference may be reasonably drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. at 147. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-385 | December 21, 2016 Page 6 of 6

[13] Johnson argues that “the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that [he] participated in the offenses for which he stands convicted.” 

(Johnson’s Br. 5). Specifically, according to Johnson, “[t]here are no 

fingerprints or DNA connecting [him] to the offenses [and] [t]he State’s case 

against him consists almost entirely of circumstantial evidence and the highly 

questionable testimony of [his] co-defendant.” (Johnson’s Br. 12).

[14] However, our review of the evidence reveals that Mauricio testified that he and 

Johnson went to the motel with a plan to rob Norris and Woods and that 

Johnson shot Woods. Johnson slid the gun he used to kill Woods under the 

front passenger’s seat of the car where he was sitting when the police arrived to 

question Mauricio. Norris’ identification and credit cards and phone were 

found in Johnson’s bedroom. Cell phone records indicated that Johnson was in 

the area of the motel when Woods was killed. The records also indicated that 

someone had used Johnson’s phone to search Fox 59 News for information 

about the murder. In addition, a roll of duct tape found in the vehicle Mauricio 

and Johnson drove to the motel matched the duct tape used to bind Woods and 

Norris. We agree with the State that this is ample evidence from which the jury 

could have inferred beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson committed the 

crimes. Johnson’s argument is simply a request that we reweigh the evidence, 

which we cannot do. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146.

[15] Affirmed.

Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.