Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 1 of 10

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

Joseph P. Hunter

Muncie, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Ellen H. Meilaender

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jeremy Alan Riddle,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 30, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

27A05-1606-CR-1360

Appeal from the Grant Superior 

Court

The Honorable Jeffrey D. Todd, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

27D01-1512-MR-2

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Jeremy Alan Riddle (“Riddle”) was convicted in Grant Superior Court of 

murder, Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 2 of 10

felon, and Level 6 felony theft. Riddle was ordered to serve an aggregate 

seventy-seven-year sentence in the Department of Correction. Riddle appeals 

his convictions and argues that the trial court denied him the right to a fair trial 

by admitting gruesome crime scene photographs and autopsy photographs into 

evidence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Riddle and Wendell Donaldson (“Donaldson”) were neighbors and 

acquaintances. On November 11, 2015, Riddle went to Donaldson’s home and 

shot him in the back of the head. Donaldson fell to the floor in his kitchen and 

died instantly. Riddle put a blanket over Donaldson’s head and ransacked the

home. Donaldson’s pants pockets were also turned inside out. Riddle stole a log 

splitter, push mower, Donaldson’s phone, and hydrocodone pills.

[4] Later that afternoon, Riddle spoke to his wife, who was incarcerated and 

expecting Riddle to post her bond. Riddle stated he had the bond money but 

that he had done something “bad” and “real serious” to get the money. Ex. 

Vol., State’s Ex. 97. Riddle said he was trying to lay low and “every day I don’t 

get the electric chair or lethal injection is a victory in my book.” Id.

[5] On November 14, 2015, Riddle sold a push mower and log splitter to a local 

pawn shop. Riddle begged the pawn shop owner to purchase the items because 

he needed money. The push mower was Donaldson’s, but the log splitter 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 3 of 10

belonged to Stephen Gray (“Gray”). Gray was Donaldson’s good friend and 

had loaned the log splitter to him.

[6] On November 18, 2015, Gray stopped by Donaldson’s home to visit with him, 

but did not receive an answer when he knocked on the door. He also sent text 

messages to Donaldson but did receive any response. On November 22, 2015, 

Gray returned to Donaldson’s home because he had not heard from him and 

wanted to retrieve his log splitter. Gray’s knock on the door went unanswered, 

and no smoke was coming from the wood-stove chimney pipe, the residence’s 

heat source. Gray was concerned and entered the home through a window 

Donaldson kept partially open to keep the temperature regulated inside the 

residence.

[7] Gray knew something was amiss immediately because the home was 

ransacked. Gray then saw Donaldson’s body on the kitchen floor. Donaldson 

was on his back with a blanket covering his head. Gray quickly discerned that 

Donaldson was dead. He left the residence immediately and called the police.

[8] When the police arrived, they discovered that Donaldson had suffered a fatal 

gunshot to his head and neck. The bullet entered at the back of his head, 

severed his spinal cord, and exited through his right eye. He was shot at close 

range and a spent casing of a 9 millimeter round was found next to his body.

[9] Donaldson’s body was in an advanced state of decomposition. His pants 

pockets were turned inside out and were empty. The police were unable to 

locate Donaldson’s cell phone, and his prescription bottle of hydrocodone 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 4 of 10

sitting on the kitchen counter, which had been filled on October 25, 2015, with 

a 30-day supply, was empty.

[10] A glass containing orange juice was also on the kitchen counter. The glass was 

tested for DNA and fingerprints. Riddle’s fingerprints and DNA were found on 

the glass. The police also found a 9 mm handgun hidden inside a well casing on 

the property where Riddle lived in November 2015. The spent casing located 

next to Donaldson’s body had been fired by that handgun. A minor DNA 

profile found on the gun was consistent with Riddle’s DNA.

[11] On December 31, 2015, Riddle was charged with murder, Level 4 felony 

possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and Level 6 felony theft. A 

three-day jury trial commenced on May 16, 2016. At trial, Riddle objected to 

the admission of several crime scene photographs and several autopsy 

photographs. The trial court admitted the photographs over his objection.

[12] Riddle was found guilty as charged. At sentencing, Riddle was ordered to serve 

an aggregate seventy-seven-year sentence. Specifically, he was ordered to serve 

concurrent terms of sixty-five years and two and one-half years for the murder 

and theft convictions and a consecutive twelve-year term for the possession of a 

firearm conviction. Riddle now appeals.

Standard of Review

[13] Riddle argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted 

numerous crime scene and autopsy photographs into evidence. “A trial court 

has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and we will 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 5 of 10

disturb its rulings only where it is shown that the court abused that discretion.” 

Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 675 (Ind. 2013). “An abuse of discretion 

occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of 

the facts and circumstances before it.” Id.

Discussion and Decision

[14] “[G]enerally, photographs depicting the crime scene and victim’s body are 

admissible as long as they are relevant and competent aids to the jury.” Id. at 

676 (quoting Woods v. State, 677 N.E.2d 499, 504 (Ind. 1997)). “Although a 

photograph may arouse the passions of the jurors, it is admissible unless ‘its 

probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.’”

Id. (quoting Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 406 (Ind. 2000)). “Even gory and 

revolting photographs may be admissible as long as they are relevant to some 

material issue or show scenes that a witness could describe orally.” Id. (quoting 

Amburgey v. State, 696 N.E.2d 44, 45 (Ind. 1998)).

[15] Riddle argues that the repetitive photographs of the crime scene were so graphic 

and gruesome that their probative value was substantially outweighed by the 

danger of unfair prejudice. Riddle argues that the autopsy photographs should 

not have been admitted because Donaldson’s body was shown in an altered and 

manipulated state.

A. Crime Scene Photographs

[16] Riddle challenges the admission of the crime scene photographs in exhibits 21, 

22, 24, 36, 37, and 41. Riddle argues that the gruesome photographs graphically 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 6 of 10

depicting the wounds to Donaldson’s face and head were repetitive of other 

photographs admitted. Therefore, the photographs “had little, if any, 

interpretive value for the jury that was not adequately portrayed in other 

photos.” Appellant’s Br. at 13. Riddle notes that two of the photographs were 

not mentioned in any witness testimony.

[17] The photographs are graphic and gruesome, particularly the enlarged images of 

the wound to Donaldson’s eye and head where the bullet exited his body. The 

State argues that the photographs were not unfairly prejudicial because they 

were taken from different angles and were used to show the gunshot wound, the 

decomposition of Donaldson’s body to establish the time of the murder, and the 

position of his body near the window of the kitchen sink. 

[18] At trial, the State argued that the bullet was not recovered because it likely went 

through the kitchen window after exiting Donaldson’s body. A photograph was 

also admitted to show where the bullet exited the kitchen window. Ex. Vol., 

State’s Ex. 9. Therefore, the position of Donaldson’s body relative to the 

kitchen window was relevant and photographs taken from different angles in 

the kitchen gave the jury a more accurate view of the crime scene. Although

there was no witness testimony about the photograph in exhibit 36, it shows a 

more focused and close-up image of Donaldson’s pants pockets turned inside 

out. This fact was relevant to the State’s argument that the motive for the 

murder was theft. These photographs were all relevant to issues argued by the 

parties at trial and aided the jury in understanding the position of Donaldson’s 

body in the crime scene and how he was shot. For these reasons, the probative 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 7 of 10

value of the photographs was not substantially outweighed by the danger of 

unfair prejudice, and therefore, the trial court properly admitted the 

photographs in Exhibits 21, 22, 36, 37 and 41. 

[19] The only challenged photograph that was not referenced in testimony and was 

repetitive of other admitted photographs is the image in Exhibit 24. The image 

is a graphic and gruesome enlarged photograph of the victim’s head. However,

it is no more graphic or disturbing than any other properly admitted exhibit. 

[20] For the sake of argument, if we concluded that the trial court abused its 

discretion by admitting the photograph in Exhibit 24, the error would be 

harmless.

Errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence are to be 

disregarded as harmless error unless they affect the substantial 

rights of the party. To determine whether an error in the 

introduction of evidence affected the appellant's substantial 

rights, this Court must assess the probable impact of that 

evidence upon the jury. 

Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 628 (Ind. 2002) (citations omitted). The 

improper admission of evidence is deemed harmless if there is substantial 

independent evidence of guilt supporting a conviction such that we can say 

there is no substantial likelihood that the questioned evidence contributed to the 

conviction. Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1238 (Ind. 2012).

[21] At trial, Riddle argued that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

that he shot Donaldson. It was undisputed that Donaldson was shot in his 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 8 of 10

kitchen and he died as a result. We cannot conclude that the erroneous 

admission of one photograph containing an image of Donaldson’s gunshot 

wound had a significant impact on the jury because the image was presented to 

the jury in several properly admitted photographs. Moreover, substantial 

independent evidence of guilt supports Riddle’s murder conviction. Therefore,

even if the photograph is Exhibit 24 was improperly admitted into evidence, 

Riddle has not established reversible error. 

B. Autopsy Photographs

[22] “Autopsy photographs often present unique problems because the pathologist 

has manipulated the body in some way during the autopsy.” Halliburton, 1 

N.E.3d at 677 (citing Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 627 (Ind. 2002)). “And 

autopsy photographs are generally inadmissible if they show the body in an 

altered condition.” Id. “However, ‘there are situations where some alteration of 

the body is allowed where necessary to demonstrate the testimony being 

given.’” Id. (quoting Swingley v. State, 739 N.E.2d 132, 134 (Ind. 2000)). When a 

body is altered for a photograph, the concern is that the handiwork of the 

physician may be imputed to the accused and “‘thereby render the defendant 

responsible in the minds of the jurors for the cuts, incisions, and indignity of an 

autopsy.’” Swingley, 739 N.E.2d at 133 (quoting Allen v. State, 686 N.E.2d 760 

(1997)).

[23] Riddle argues that that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the 

challenged autopsy photographs because Donaldson’s body is manipulated and 

altered in the images. Both exhibits 71 and 72 show the wound where the bullet 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 9 of 10

entered the back of Donaldson’s head or neck, and the pathologist testified that 

he rubbed some of the skin away around the wound so that he could see it more 

clearly. Tr. p. 283. The pathologist also did so to take tissue samples to look for 

evidence of stippling, which occurs when the victim is shot at close range. Tr. 

pp. 283-84. In the photographs, the pathologist’s gloved hands are also 

manipulating the back of Donaldson’s neck and holding his hair away from the 

wound so that it was more visible.

[24] The State argues that the alteration of Donaldson’s wound “is not something 

that would have been noticeable but for the pathologist’s testimony, and it is 

not something that made the injury more graphic or disturbing than it otherwise 

would have been.” Appellee’s Br. at 16. Moreover, the pathologist manipulated 

Donaldson’s body only to more clearly display and demonstrate the injury. Id.

[25] The pathologist explained to the jury what he had done and why the alteration 

was necessary to examine Donaldson’s injuries. The alteration and 

manipulation shown in the photographs was minimal. Therefore, it is unlikely 

that the autopsy photographs confused the jury concerning the injuries caused 

by Riddle when he shot Donaldson in the head and the pathologist’s minor 

alternation of those injuries. Therefore, the probative value of the photographs

was not substantially outweighed by any prejudicial effect. For these reasons, 

we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the 

autopsy photographs. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1360 | May 30, 2017 Page 10 of 10

Conclusion

[26] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted into evidence the 

challenged exhibits consisting of crime scene and autopsy photographs. 

[27] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.