The prosecution says deleted messages and evidence gathered after the shooting point to planning before Tamela Dutcher was killed.
DELAWARE, Ohio — Three young defendants accused in the fatal shooting of 55-year-old Tamela Dutcher have pleaded not guilty to aggravated murder, moving a case that began with a midnight emergency call into a court battle over alleged planning, recovered phone messages and the individual roles of Dutcher’s daughter, her daughter’s boyfriend and his roommate.
Bryanna Dutcher, 18, her boyfriend Christian Evans, 20, and Dajameous Payne, 21, were indicted Aug. 20 by a Delaware County grand jury. Prosecutors contend the homicide was planned before Evans and Payne went to the Dutcher family property during the night of Aug. 13 and 14. Defense lawyers have begun contesting parts of that account, and no trial has yet established who fired the fatal shot or what criminal responsibility, if any, belongs to each defendant.
The latest court proceedings have put Bryanna Dutcher’s alleged role at the center of the dispute. Her attorney, Dominic Mango, sought a reduction of her $3 million bond at her Aug. 24 arraignment. He told the court that she had no prior criminal record and challenged the suggestion that she had personally committed violence in the attack. Judge Marianne Hemmeter left the bond unchanged. Bryanna Dutcher pleaded not guilty, and a final pretrial hearing was set for Oct. 19, followed by a scheduled Nov. 3 trial.
Evans and Payne had been arraigned three days earlier. Both pleaded not guilty to aggravated murder and remained under $3 million bonds. Evans also entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and was ordered to undergo a competency evaluation. A competency examination addresses a defendant’s ability to understand court proceedings and assist in a defense; it does not by itself determine whether the defendant committed the charged offense. Public reporting reviewed for this story did not establish a later result from that evaluation.
The aggravated-murder accusations developed from an investigation that initially treated the defendants differently. Deputies responded just after midnight Aug. 14 after Tamela Dutcher’s husband, Neil King, called 911 to report that his wife had been shot at the family’s Bean-Oller Road home. First responders took her to a hospital, where she died. Evans and Payne were arrested later that day and charged with murder. Bryanna Dutcher was jailed on the lesser allegation of obstructing justice.
Detectives soon accused the daughter of giving misleading and shifting accounts. She initially said she did not know who was responsible, according to descriptions of the probable cause affidavit. She eventually told investigators that Evans and Payne had come to the home that night but had left before she heard a gunshot. She placed the sound roughly 10 to 15 minutes after their departure. Investigators said details of her explanation changed during subsequent questioning, and they began examining whether she had concealed information about the men.
The prosecution says the strongest evidence of a larger role emerged from the forensic examination of her phone. Investigators recovered messages that prosecutors said had been deleted. At an early hearing, Chief Criminal Assistant Prosecutor Mark Sleeper said the messages appeared to show the crime being planned in advance. At Bryanna Dutcher’s later Common Pleas Court appearance, another prosecutor described exchanges in which she and Evans allegedly discussed killing her parents together.
Among the statements disclosed in court was a message attributed to Evans saying, “this has to be perfect.” Prosecutors also said Bryanna Dutcher wrote, “I’ll just take them down,” during a conversation about her parents. Those phrases are important to the state’s theory because aggravated-murder allegations involving prior calculation require prosecutors to prove more than mere proximity to a killing. The defense will have an opportunity to dispute the authenticity, meaning, context and legal significance of the communications.
The alleged conversations were preceded by a family dispute. According to the probable cause affidavit, Bryanna Dutcher and her mother had argued Aug. 13 about cleaning, and the conflict became physical. Bryanna later told investigators she contacted Evans to vent. The affidavit said Evans responded, “If I were you, I would have killed her.” Prosecutors allege later messages moved beyond that remark into concrete preparation. The defense has not had a trial opportunity to challenge that sequence of events.
Investigators also developed evidence separate from the phone. Prosecutors said surveillance video showed Evans and Payne leaving their shared residence approximately an hour and a half before the shooting. Later local reporting said a traffic camera recorded Evans’ Camaro near Columbus Pike and East Powell Road at 12:44 a.m. Investigators further alleged that the men traveled to West Virginia after the shooting before returning to Ohio. Their movements are expected to form part of the state’s broader effort to establish a timeline.
The allegations extend to what happened after Tamela Dutcher was shot. King was trying to assist his wife when shots were fired in his direction, investigators said. He was not struck. A court account said one round hit a wall as he bent over to help her. Early reports said prosecutors were considering additional charges tied to the alleged attempt to shoot King, but the reliable public material reviewed for this article does not establish a final disposition of that possible charge.
The records also leave a central factual issue unresolved publicly: who fired the shot or shots that killed Tamela Dutcher. Early reports said Evans brought a gun, but prosecutors did not identify the shooter. A subsequent complaint accused Bryanna Dutcher, Evans and Payne collectively of entering the home and fatally shooting Tamela Dutcher without specifying which defendant pulled the trigger. That distinction could become important as prosecutors attempt to prove the legal responsibility of all three defendants for the same homicide.
Prosecutors upgraded the case against Bryanna Dutcher in stages. Three days after her obstruction arrest, she was charged with murder. On Aug. 20, the grand jury returned the aggravated-murder indictment against her and the two men. The indictment alleges purposeful killing with prior calculation and design, according to local reporting. An indictment means prosecutors have been authorized to proceed with charges; it is not a finding that the allegations are true.
Coverage of the case also has emphasized that Tamela Dutcher once co-authored an academic paper about violent and homicidal adolescents. The article was published in 2002, years before the events now under investigation. The similarity between the paper’s subject and the allegations against her daughter is striking as a biographical coincidence, but the published reporting reviewed does not show that prosecutors consider the research relevant evidence. It does not explain motive, intent or guilt and is separate from the state’s evidentiary case.
The next stage is expected to focus less on the initial arrests and more on what prosecutors can prove from the digital evidence, surveillance records, witness accounts and defendants’ statements. Bryanna Dutcher’s Oct. 19 pretrial and Nov. 3 trial date were the latest firm dates reported publicly. All three defendants remained in custody and have denied the aggravated-murder charges through their not-guilty pleas.
Author note: Last updated September 28, 2026.