Detectives say evidence revisited years after the deaths of Olivia Brown and Darian Wiley led them to Noah Brimmage.
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — A gun belonging to a slain Indianapolis man, messages investigators say were sent around the time of his death and a fresh examination of an old homicide file form key parts of the case now facing Noah Brimmage, who has been charged in the 2023 killings of Darian Jamar Wiley and Olivia Katherine Brown.
The evidence described in a probable cause affidavit offers a window into how a double homicide that remained publicly unsolved for more than three years became an active murder prosecution in 2026. Investigators accuse Brimmage, 24, of taking part in the May 6, 2023, attack that killed Wiley, 27, and Brown, 24, as Wiley walked Brown to her vehicle after a night out. Brimmage faces two murder charges and several additional felony counts. None of the new allegations has been proved in court.
One of the most direct links described in published accounts of the affidavit emerged not months or years after the crime, but the next day. A firearm belonging to Wiley was found in a vehicle associated with Brimmage during a traffic stop, according to People, which reviewed the probable cause document. Investigators eventually treated possession of that weapon as part of a larger chain of evidence. Reports say detectives also obtained communications in which Brimmage allegedly discussed selling Wiley’s gun after the killings. The state will have to establish the origin, possession and significance of that evidence in court.
The messages investigators reviewed went beyond the gun. According to accounts of the affidavit, Brimmage allegedly communicated about robbing people during the period before Brown and Wiley were killed. Other communications from after the shooting became part of the investigative timeline as detectives tried to reconstruct his actions. Digital evidence can place statements and activity into a chronology, but prosecutors still must prove that the records are authentic, properly attributed and connected to the crimes charged. The affidavit presents the government’s probable cause theory, not a final finding of guilt.
That chronology begins with Brown and Wiley on the near north side of Indianapolis. Wiley had parked near his home after the two had been out and was walking Brown back toward her car. Surveillance footage described by local news organizations showed two hooded people behind them. A resident who later discussed the footage said the pair appeared to move quickly after Brown and Wiley. Moments later, gunfire broke the quiet of the neighborhood. Wiley was shot before Brown reached her vehicle. Brown got inside and apparently tried to escape, but authorities say she was shot as well.
Police were called shortly after 12:30 a.m. Officers initially responded to the area of East 21st Street and Central Avenue on a report of a person shot and found a man and woman with gunshot wounds. Both were pronounced dead. The coroner later identified them as Wiley and Brown. Subsequent reporting and court records centered the shooting in the 2100 block of Ruckle Street. In the first days of the case, investigators did not announce a suspect, publicly establish a motive or explain whether the two victims had been specifically targeted.
As the investigation widened, authorities examined events beyond the immediate shooting scene. The probable cause affidavit, as summarized by news organizations, links Brimmage through allegations to other violent incidents around the same period. Those include an allegation that he drove a getaway vehicle after another shooting and allegations connected with a house and vehicle being set on fire. He later pleaded guilty to arson and criminal recklessness in an unrelated prosecution and was serving prison time at the Branchville Correctional Facility when homicide detectives focused on him. The prior case and the new murder prosecution are legally distinct.
The homicide inquiry did not produce charges quickly despite investigators having recovered Wiley’s gun in 2023. That gap illustrates the difference between possessing an incriminating lead and having enough evidence to charge someone with murder. Publicly available reports do not disclose every investigative decision made during the intervening years. IMPD has said that its unsolved homicide unit took over the case two years after the killings and conducted a renewed review rather than simply relying on the conclusions reached in the initial investigation.
Police described that later work as a process of revisiting evidence, connecting forensic findings and reconsidering the case from different investigative perspectives. The department said the approach allowed detectives to answer questions that had remained open. The eventual identification of Brimmage came while he was already in state custody, removing the need for officers to locate him in the community before seeking the new charges. He was subsequently booked in Marion County in connection with the homicide case.
The charging records cited by Law&Crime list two counts of murder, one for each death. They also include robbery resulting in bodily injury, three counts of battery by means of a deadly weapon and criminal recklessness. Local police reports have used somewhat different shorthand in describing some of the battery allegations, making the filed court counts the more precise reference. The prosecution’s theory appears to include robbery as part of the encounter, but the complete circumstances and any claimed motive must still be tested through the court process.
The physical and digital evidence also does not answer every question created by the surveillance footage. Reports consistently describe two people following Brown and Wiley, yet authorities have publicly charged only Brimmage in the killings. No second defendant has been announced in the materials reviewed for this article. It therefore remains unclear whether investigators have identified the other figure, whether they believe that person participated directly in the gunfire or what evidence may exist concerning that individual’s role.
For the victims’ families, the evidentiary reconstruction came only after a long period without a publicly identified suspect. Brown’s sister Hannah Carter said before the arrest that it was painful to feel trapped in uncertainty while the rest of the world continued moving forward. Her comments underscored a consequence of an unsolved homicide that does not appear in forensic reports: years can pass while relatives have neither a final explanation nor a court proceeding through which the evidence can be tested.
Brown had been building a career in mental health before her death. A graduate of Columbus North High School, Ball State University and Indiana Wesleyan University, she had earned a master’s degree and was working toward becoming a licensed clinical social worker. She worked as a therapist at the Emberwood Center. Her obituary recalled her enthusiasm for reading, cooking, travel, exercise and cats and emphasized her desire to help other people.
Wiley had followed a different professional path but shared Brown’s connection to Ball State. His obituary said he graduated from Arsenal Technical High School as salutatorian and later earned a degree in construction management. He had participated in football, robotics and an ACE program and was remembered for interests that ranged from music and guitar to golf. Friends and relatives described him as someone who enjoyed bringing people together and making them laugh.
The evidentiary case against Brimmage will now be judged under a much higher standard than the probable cause required to file charges. Prosecutors will have to prove the murder allegations beyond a reasonable doubt if the case reaches trial, while the defense may challenge the meaning, admissibility or attribution of the weapon, messages and other evidence. Brimmage is presumed innocent of the homicide charges unless convicted.
No final resolution of the new murder prosecution was established in the public reports reviewed as of Aug. 28. What has changed since the first hours of May 6, 2023, is that investigators now have a named defendant and a documented theory connecting him to the crime. What remains unchanged is that the surveillance account contains another figure whose role has not been publicly resolved, leaving part of the evidentiary picture incomplete even as the prosecution moves forward.
Author note: Last updated Aug. 28, 2026.