Quayawn D Eldridge v. State of Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1091 | October 20, 2026 	Page 1 of 9
Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 65(E), the trial court and parties shall not take
any action in reliance upon this memorandum decision until it is certified.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not
binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value
or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
I N 	T H E
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Quayawn D. Eldridge,
Appellant-Defendant
v.
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff
October 20, 2026
Court of Appeals Case No.
26A-CR-1091
Appeal from the Allen Superior Court
The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D05-2307-F1-24
Memorandum Decision by Judge DeBoer
Judges Foley and Felix concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1091 | October 20, 2026 	Page 2 of 9
DeBoer, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] 	Quayawn Eldridge appeals his convictions for attempted murder, aggravated
battery, and criminal recklessness, arguing the State presented insufficient
evidence to identify him as the perpetrator. Finding there was sufficient
evidence, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] 	In 2023, seven-year-old Child Victim attended a Fourth of July block party with
his mother. The party was at the home of Child Victim’s uncle, and several of
Child Victim’s family members were present, including his aunt, Adult
Witness, and her boyfriend, Tyron Hill. At some point that evening, Child
Victim called his father, Adult Victim, and asked if Adult Victim would pick
him up because the fireworks were too loud. Adult Victim and his girlfriend,
Victoria Vickers, drove to the party a short while later. Adult Victim parked in
the alley behind the house and went inside, leaving Vickers in the car.
[3] 	In the house, Adult Victim walked to the kitchen and left a watermelon for
those at the party to enjoy. Hill then approached Adult Victim, wanting to
speak with him about an earlier incident involving Adult Victim’s sister. Adult
Victim refused to speak with Hill, telling him, “Bruh, I ain’t got nothing to say
to you . . . . Just back up off me.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 240. Hill tried to press
the issue, but Adult Victim walked outside with Child Victim, intending to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1091 | October 20, 2026 	Page 3 of 9
leave the party. Hill followed Adult Victim outside, and Adult Victim again
said he didn’t want to speak with Hill.
[4] 	As Adult Victim walked with Child Victim to the car, several people joined Hill
outside, including Hill’s half-brother, Eldridge. Hill then asked Adult Victim,
“So what, you wanna fight me?” which prompted Adult Victim to quickly load
Child Victim in the back seat of the car so they could leave. Id. at 244. At that
point, Adult Victim heard Hill say, “[H]and me my gun.” Id. at 245. As Adult
Victim got into the driver’s seat of his car, he looked back and saw Eldridge
pulling a rifle out of his pants. Hill and Eldridge, who were both armed, each
fired shots at Adult Victim’s car. Adult Victim sped from the alley as bullets
struck the back of his vehicle and shattered the rear window.
[5] 	While Adult Victim and Vickers were unharmed, Child Victim was hit by a
bullet, which traveled through his torso and eventually became lodged in his
thigh. When Adult Victim realized Child Victim had been shot, he pulled over
and flagged down a nearby police officer. That officer rendered aid to Child
Victim until paramedics arrived and transported him to a hospital. There,
Child Victim underwent life-saving emergency surgery to repair injuries to his
bowels, colon, and kidney. The surgeon recovered the bullet from Child
Victim’s thigh, and later analysis concluded the bullet’s size and rifling-marks
were consistent with having been fired from a .223-caliber rifle.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1091 | October 20, 2026 	Page 4 of 9
[6] 	On July 12, 2023, and as later amended, the State charged Eldridge with Level
1 felony attempted murder,1 Level 3 felony aggravated battery,2 and Level 5
felony criminal recklessness.3 The State also filed notice of its intent to seek a
firearm sentence enhancement under Indiana Code section 35-50-2-11. Hill
was similarly charged under Cause No. 02D05-2307-F1-23, and both men were
tried as co-defendants in a three-day jury trial from January 27-29, 2026.
[7] 	At trial, two witnesses directly identified Eldridge as one of the shooters. First,
Adult Witness described seeing Adult Victim argue with Hill and Eldridge as he
left the party. She then had the following exchange with the deputy prosecutor:
Q And what happened after [Adult Victim] pulled off?
A Shooting started.
Q Okay. Who started shooting?
A [Eldridge].
Id. at 218. When asked what kind of gun Eldridge had, Adult Witness said she
was unsure, but that it was “bigger . . . than a handgun.” Id. She also testified
1 Ind. Code §§ 35-41-5-1(a) (2014) (attempt), 35-42-1-1(1) (2018) (murder).
2 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.5 (2014).
3 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-2(b)(2)(A) (2019) (amended 2025).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1091 | October 20, 2026 	Page 5 of 9
that when she spoke to the investigating officers shortly after the shooting, she
said Eldridge “was one of the people shooting at the car.” Id. at 222.
[8] 	Second, Adult Victim testified that while getting into his car, he saw Eldridge
“reach[] in his pants and pull[] out some[thing] long, . . . which was probably a
rifle or something like that.” Id. at 246. When asked to describe the shooting
itself, Adult Victim initially said he could only “see the flashes of the gun” and
“couldn’t tell” who was firing. Id. at 247-48. But Adult Victim then clarified
that he saw “[Eldridge] lift the rifle up and start shooting at [his] car.” Id. at
249.
[9] 	There were also several witnesses who indirectly identified Eldridge as one of
the shooters. Hill’s cousin, Kuanza, testified that she saw Eldridge at the party,
and he was wearing “a dark or black or navy[-]blue Adidas outfit with . . . white
stripes going down the sides . . . .” Id. at 199. Kuanza did not see the shooting,
but she went to the alley after hearing gunshots and saw a “person that had on
[a] black, dark Adidas outfit.” Id. at 206. Though she did not identify Eldridge,
she said the person she saw was wearing “the same outfit [she] saw . . . Eldridge
wearing earlier.” Id.
[10] 	Adult Victim similarly testified that Eldridge was “dressed . . . in black with the
white stripes.” Id. at 248. Fort Wayne Police Detective Larry Tague testified
that he spoke with Adult Victim shortly after the shooting while Child Victim
was in the hospital. He recounted that Adult Victim told him the following
about the shooting:

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1091 | October 20, 2026 	Page 6 of 9
At one point in time [after Adult Victim went outside to the
alley], [Hill] handed a gun to another taller [black] male . . . in a
black jumpsuit and wanted to fight. . . . [I]t was getting too
dangerous for him, so he put his son in the car and he started
driving away, and that’s when [he] heard the shots fired.
Tr. Vol. 3 at 50. In her testimony, Vickers gave a similar description of the two
men she saw arguing with Adult Victim, one of whom “was wearing a black or
gray outfit.” Id. at 26.
[11] 	The physical evidence obtained during the investigation was consistent with
these witnesses’ accounts. 	In the alley, officers found 9-millimeter and .223-
caliber shell casings. Detective Alan Garriott testified that .223-caliber rounds
are typically fired from an “AR-15 style . . . semi-automatic rifle.” Id. at 65.
Eldridge and Hill were arrested at Eldridge’s home on July 14, 2023. While
officers did not find any firearms in the house during a subsequent search, they
found live rounds, an ammunition box, a loaded magazine, an empty
magazine, and two holsters—all for a 9-millimeter handgun. In a laundry
basket, officers found what one detective described as “a black sweatshirt or
jacket . . . with white stripes on it.” Id. at 123.
[12] 	Ultimately, the jury found Eldridge guilty as charged, and the trial court
imposed an aggregate sentence of eighty-two years in the Department of
Correction. Eldridge now appeals.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1091 | October 20, 2026 	Page 7 of 9
Discussion and Decision
[13] 	On appeal, Eldridge contends the State presented insufficient evidence that he
was one of the individuals who shot at Adult Victim’s car. When reviewing a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we are mindful that it is the jury’s
role, not ours, “to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to
determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction.” Teising v. State, 226
N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.
2007)). As such, “[w]e consider only the evidence most favorable to” the
conviction, together with any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that
evidence. Id. We will affirm a conviction unless no reasonable jury could have
found “the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
(quoting Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000)).
[14] 	When identity is at issue, it is sufficient for a single witness to have
unequivocally identified the defendant as the perpetrator. Taylor v. State, 479
N.E.2d 1310, 1312 (Ind. 1985); Scott v. State, 871 N.E.2d 341, 345 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007), trans. denied. Moreover, “[a]ny discrepancies in witness testimony
affect the weight of the evidence and credibility of the witness, issues which are
beyond our scope of review.” Taylor, 479 N.E.2d at 1312. Even an equivocal
identification may “contribute to a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”
so long as the witness’ account was corroborated by other evidence. Scott, 871
N.E.2d at 345. In any case, the relevant inquiry is “whether the evidence was
such that from it a rational trier of fact could infer beyond a reasonable doubt

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1091 | October 20, 2026 	Page 8 of 9
that [the defendant] was the perpetrator of the crime.” Taylor, 479 N.E.2d at
1312.
[15] 	Here, Adult Witness unequivocally identified Eldridge as a shooter. While her
testimony alone is sufficient to sustain Eldridge’s conviction, Eldridge was also
directly identified by Adult Victim, albeit after Adult Victim initially said he
didn’t get a clear view of the shooters. It was the jury’s role to determine the
reliability of Adult Victim’s identification of Eldridge, and we will not disturb
the jury’s credibility determination.
[16] 	Moreover, the jury heard ample circumstantial evidence that Eldridge was
involved in the shooting, namely that multiple witnesses testified one of the
shooters was wearing a dark sweatsuit with white stripes—the same outfit
Kuanza saw Eldridge wearing at the party and which officers found in
Eldridge’s home after his arrest. Additionally, the shell casings found at the
scene and the .223-caliber round recovered from Child Victim’s thigh indicated
one of the shooters was armed with a rifle, consistent with Adult Victim’s
testimony that Eldridge had a rifle and Adult Witness’ testimony that Eldridge’s
gun was larger than a handgun.
[17] 	In short, two eyewitnesses testified that Eldridge shot a rifle at Adult Victim’s
car, and their accounts were corroborated by circumstantial evidence
identifying Eldridge as one of the shooters. As such, the State presented
sufficient evidence to support Eldridge’s convictions.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1091 | October 20, 2026 	Page 9 of 9
Conclusion
[18] 	For these reasons, we affirm Eldridge’s convictions.
[19] 	Affirmed.
Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Thomas C. Allen
Fort Wayne, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Indiana Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana