David, J.
A jury convicted Johnetta Ruth Hall of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. After finding the murder-for-hire statutory aggravator beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury recommended that Hall serve life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The trial court adopted this recommendation, and sentenced Hall to life without parole (“LWOP”) for her murder charge and thirty-five years for the conspiracy to commit murder charge to be served concurrently.
In this direct appeal, Hall makes four arguments. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for her convictions; the sufficiency of the evidence for her murder-for-hire aggravating circumstance; the admission and exclusion of certain testimony at trial; and asks this Court to revise her concurrent conspiracy sentence.
We affirm the trial court.
….
I. The sufficiency of the evidence supports Hall’s convictions for murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
…..
Further, the evidence favorable to the judgment shows that Hall offered Heald NASCAR memorabilia, a portion of Reynolds’ life insurance proceeds, and ownership of her Nissan in exchange for Heald to kill Reynolds. It also shows that Hall provided the murder weapon and ammunition. Mathis and Bunyard each provided live, in-court testimony describing Hall’s role in the scheme to murder Reynolds, and Heald’s deposition implicating Hall was also read in its entirety to the jury. The State also presented evidence that Hall exchanged text messages and other communications with Heald regarding Heald’s status leading up to the murder, and the State also presented evidence that Hall coordinated a meeting with Heald after the murder to exchange payment. Given all this, a jury could reasonably infer that Hall sought to aid, induce, or cause Heald to shoot and kill Reynolds. See Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to support Hall’s murder conviction.
There is also sufficient evidence to support Hall’s conspiracy to commit murder conviction. A conspiracy charge requires the State to show the defendant had intent to commit a felony, an agreement with another person to commit the felony, and an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. Ind. Code § 35-41-5-2; see Perkins v. State, 483 N.E.2d 1379, 1385 (Ind. 1985). Here, reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence demonstrate that Hall agreed with Heald for Heald to murder Reynolds in exchange for compensation in the form of NASCAR memorabilia, life insurance proceeds, and the Nissan vehicle. Through this, Hall intended for, and later encouraged and motivated, Heald to kill Reynolds, which he eventually did, constituting an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. See Ind. Code § 35-41-5-2. Therefore, the evidence is sufficient such that a reasonable jury could find that Hall conspired with Heald to kill Reynolds.
II. There is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Hall committed the statutory aggravator of murder-for-hire.
….
Hall makes the same sufficiency challenges regarding the murder for hire aggravator as she did for her murder and conspiracy to commit murder convictions. However, the evidence shows that Hall offered Heald a portion of Reynolds’ life insurance proceeds and NASCAR memorabilia. Heald, Mathis, and Bunyard all provided testimony that Hall offered to compensate Heald in exchange for murdering Reynolds. Heald testified that he murdered Reynolds in response to Hall’s compensation offers. There was corroborating video surveillance footage showing Mathis packing NASCAR memorabilia into his car in Heald and Hall’s presence. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Hall committed the statutory murder-for-hire aggravating circumstance.
III. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Heald’s 2017 deposition and excluding his September 29, 2015 statement to police.
Hall argues that it was an abuse of discretion to admit a section of Heald’s prior deposition testimony and also to exclude a prior statement that he made to police. A trial court has discretion regarding the admission of evidence and its decisions are reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Lewis v. State, 34 N.E.3d 240, 247 (Ind. 2015). We will reverse only if the trial court’s ruling was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it and errors affect a party’s substantial rights. Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459, 467 (Ind. 2015).
A. The trial court did not make any errors related to Heald’s August 2017 deposition testimony.
….
B. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Heald’s prior statement to police for impeachment purposes.
….
C. If there was any error related to the admission or exclusion of evidence, it was harmless error.
….
IV. Hall’s sentence for conspiracy to commit murder does not warrant 7(B) revision.
….
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court.
Rush, C.J., and Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.