Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-283 | October 11, 2018 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

Matthew D. Anglemeyer

Marion County Public Defender Agency 

Appellate Division

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Jesse R. Drum

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ralph A. Tait,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 11, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-283

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Grant W. 

Hawkins, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G05-1609-MR-38611

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-283 | October 11, 2018 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Ralph Tait (“Tait”) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of murder.1 

He raises one issue on appeal, namely, whether the trial court erroneously 

excluded evidence tending to show that a third party committed the crime.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] At around 4:45 a.m. on September 25, 2016, Tait drove Starr Eldridge 

(“Eldridge”) to a gas station and then to his apartment approximately five miles 

away. At about 5:45 a.m., Tait carried Eldridge’s body, which was wrapped in 

a comforter, out of his apartment and into the trunk of his car. Tait dumped 

Eldridge’s body in a nearby retention pond. He then cleaned his apartment 

with bleach and cut out a piece of carpet and padding. Later that day, someone 

found Eldridge’s body in the pond. She had thirteen stab wounds. The police 

found her blood and DNA in Tait’s apartment and car.

[4] The State charged Tait with murder. Before trial, Tait filed a “Notice of Intent 

to Use” and admit at trial evidence that: the police investigated Leroy Moss

(“Moss”), Eldridge’s former boyfriend, as a suspect in Eldridge’s murder; Moss 

was charged with robbing a cab driver with a knife on October 15, 2016; Moss’s 

 

1

 Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-283 | October 11, 2018 Page 3 of 6

DNA and inconclusive DNA of another person were found on the knife Moss 

used in the robbery; and Moss was with Tait and Eldridge on the morning of 

Eldridge’s murder. In response, the State filed its objection and a Motion in 

Limine requesting that the court prohibit Tait from presenting evidence of, 

among other things: Eldridge’s prostitution and other crimes and evidence of 

any other third person’s past crimes. 

[5] At a November 21, 2017, pretrial hearing, Tait did not object to the exclusion of 

evidence about Eldridge’s prostitution, noting that “[i]f it comes out in trial I 

suppose we could revisit.” Supp. Tr. Vol. II at 24. Although Tait argued at the 

pretrial hearing for the admission of evidence of Moss’s past crimes, including 

DNA evidence of the knife used in the robbery, the trial court ruled that Tait 

was not permitted to admit such evidence at trial, but that Tait and Moss could 

testify about their observations. On November 27, the day of the jury trial but 

before voir dire, Tait purported to “supplement” his prior November 21 offer of 

proof with the Commander’s Information Sheet for Moss’s arrest, Defense 

Exhibit A, and two subpoenas, Defense Exhibits B-1 and B-2. Tr. Vol. II at 7-8. 

However, at trial, Tait never attempted to introduce those exhibits or any other 

evidence about Eldridge’s prostitution or Moss’s prior crimes; therefore, the

trial court did not make any final ruling on the admission of such evidence.

[6] At Tait’s trial, Detective Christopher Craighill testified that he interviewed 

Moss and took a buccal swab of Moss. Tait testified that, on the morning of 

Eldridge’s death, he took Moss and Eldridge to the gas station and then Tait’s

apartment. Tait testified that he left Moss and Eldridge in his apartment while 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-283 | October 11, 2018 Page 4 of 6

he went back to the gas station to get cigarettes. Tait stated that, when he 

returned to his apartment, he found Eldridge’s dead body and Moss had left the 

apartment. Tait testified that he removed Eldridge’s body and dumped it in a 

retention pond because he was “shocked” and “frantic,” and he did not know 

what else to do. Tr. Vol. III at 98. Moss testified that he was not with Eldridge 

on the day of her murder, that he had never met Tait or been to his apartment, 

and that a detective interviewed him and took a buccal swab. 

[7] On November 28, 2017, the jury found Tait guilty of murder, and he was 

subsequently sentenced to serve fifty-five years at the Department of Correction. 

This appeal ensued. 

Discussion and Decision

[8] Tait contends that the trial court denied him a fair trial by excluding evidence 

that Moss, rather than Tait, committed the murder of Eldridge. Specifically, he 

asserts that the trial court erred by excluding the following evidence that: (1) 

Moss and Eldridge were romantically involved; (2) Eldridge was a prostitute 

and Moss may have been her pimp; (3) Eldridge and Moss argued 

approximately one month before her murder; (4) Moss was arrested and 

charged with robbery three weeks after the murder; (5) Moss used the same type 

of weapon in the robbery—i.e., a knife—as was used in Eldridge’s murder; (6) 

the knife used in the robbery had Moss’s DNA on it and the DNA of an 

unknown third person; and (7) Eldridge died from thirteen stab wounds. 

Appellant’s Br. at 16-17. However, evidence was admitted at trial as to facts 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-283 | October 11, 2018 Page 5 of 6

(1), (3), and (7), above. And, although Tait attempted unsuccessfully at a 

pretrial hearing on a motion in limine to get a ruling of admission as to 

evidence of facts (2), (4), (5), and (6), he never offered or attempted to admit 

such evidence at trial. 

[9] In order to preserve error in the over-ruling of a pretrial motion in limine, the 

appealing party must have offered the evidence at issue into the trial record, and 

he must have objected to the ruling disallowing the admission of that evidence. 

Clausen v. State, 622 N.E.2d 925, 927 (Ind. 1993). This is because a ruling on a 

motion in limine “does not determine the ultimate admissibility of the evidence; 

that determination is made by the trial court in the context of the trial itself.” 

Id. at 927. Absent “a ruling at trial excluding evidence accompanied by a 

proper offer of proof, there is no basis for a claim of error.” Hollowell v. State, 

753 N.E.2d 612, 615-16 (Ind. 2001). Thus, failure to object to the exclusion of 

evidence at trial results in waiver of the alleged error. Clausen, 622 N.E.2d at 

927; see also Raess v. Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 790, 796-97 (Ind. 2008) (“Failure to 

object at trial to the admission of the evidence results in waiver of the error, 

notwithstanding a prior motion in limine.”). 

[10] Because Tait did not attempt to admit evidence of Eldridge’s prostitution or 

Moss’s arrest and charge for robbery at trial, there is no order excluding that 

evidence for him to appeal.2 He has waived any claim regarding the admission 

 

2

 For the same reason, we cannot engage in a fundamental error analysis; there is no exclusion of evidence 

to be analyzed. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-283 | October 11, 2018 Page 6 of 6

into evidence of facts relating to Eldridge’s prostitution and Moss’s past 

criminal behavior, as no such admission was sought, nor any offer of proof 

made, at trial. Id.

[11] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.