Justices find victim’s statements regarding altercation fall under hearsay exception

Jennifer Nelson for www.theindianalawyer.com

The admission of testimony regarding a murder victim’s recount of his previous altercation with the man convicted in his murder were properly allowed as hearsay statements under Indiana Evidence Rule 804(b)(3), the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The justices granted transfer to Leandrew Beasley v. State of Indiana, 49S02-1601-CR-20, and James Beasley v. State of Indiana,
49S04-1601-CR-19, who were jointly tried and convicted in the murder of James Allen and attempted murder of Gerald Beamon in Indianapolis in 2012.

The Beasleys appealed their convictions, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Beamon to testify – over their repeated hearsay objections – as to what Allen had told him about an altercation the day before involving Allen and Leandrew Beasley. The day before the fatal shooting, Leandrew Beasley and Allen got into a fight in a garage and Beasley pulled a gun. Allen attempted to grab it and Beasley was shot in the face. James Beasley was at the scene, according to Beamon. He was told this story by Allen the next day, who showed Beamon pictures of the Beasley brothers.

Shortly thereafter, Allen and Beamon were shot while moving items into an apartment. Beamon identified the shooters as the Beasley brothers.

The Court of Appeals held the admission of Beamon’s testimony regarding what Allen told him about the garage shooting was erroneous, but harmless. The justices took the companion cases based on this issue.

“In both (Jervis v. State, 679 N.E.2d 875, 878-80 (Ind. 1997)) and (Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 220 (Ind. 2009)), the declarants’ statements sought to be admitted (one referencing dumping off a woman and the other having bodies on one’s conscience) were vague and subject to interpretation. Here, we have no such ambiguity: Allen gave Beamon a precise account of his altercation with Beasley, and stated in no uncertain terms that he shot Beasley in the face,” Justice Mark Massa wrote in Leandrew Beasley v. State of Indiana.

“Even if Allen believed the shooting was justified as a matter of self-defense, it does not necessarily follow that Allen believed there was no possibility of future civil or criminal liability for the act. Beasley opposes this position by likening Allen’s statements to telling someone you ‘drove home drunk last night,’ in support of his assertion that “trivial ‘confessions’ of criminal conduct” should not be rendered admissible hearsay under Rule 804(B)(3).

“We cannot agree that the act of shooting a fellow human being in the face qualifies as ‘trivial.’ Rather, we find the trial court could have reasonably determined that admitting to such a violent act would have ‘so great a tendency … to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability’ that it was admissible hearsay under Rule 804(b)(3).”

The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals decision in all other respects.