Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 1 of 28

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Michael R. Fisher

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James Beasley,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 29, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A04-1406-CR-253

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber, 

Judge

Cause No. 49G01-1210-MR-67595

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 2 of 28

[1] James Beasley appeals his convictions for murder and attempted murder, a 

class A felony. Beasley raises two issues, which we revise and restate as:

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain 

statements; and

II. Whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial.

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] At around eleven a.m. on August 3, 2012, James Allen drove with his 

girlfriend, Shantell Williams, to the home of his cousin, Gerald Beamon. 

Williams waited in the car while Allen went inside to speak with Beamon. 

Allen told Beamon that he had been involved in an altercation the night before 

with a man known as “Little Rock,” who was later identified as Leandrew 

Beasley (“Leandrew”). Transcript at 129. According to Allen, also present 

during the altercation were men known as Levi, Little Billy, and Little Rock’s 

brother, known as “J Rock” and later identified as James Beasley. Id. at 130. 

Allen stated that they were in a garage when he noticed Leandrew reach for a 

gun in his waist band, and Allen reached for the gun, punched Leandrew, and 

struggled for control of the gun. Allen also told Beamon that during the 

struggle, the gun went off and Leandrew was shot in the face. Then, Allen said, 

the gun would not fire anymore, and he pushed Leandrew and ran away.

[3] Allen asked Beamon to help him move some of his belongings from his home 

to Williams’s apartment. Williams drove them to the home of a friend of hers 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 3 of 28

where they changed cars, and afterwards they drove to Allen’s house to pick up 

his belongings. Beamon saw that Allen’s home had been ransacked. They then 

returned to the friend’s house to switch back to the original car. While 

Williams was inside the friend’s house, Allen showed Beamon some 

photographs that had been taken of people at a club a few weeks earlier. Allen 

identified the people “he got into it with” the night before in the pictures by 

pointing to them in a photograph later admitted into evidence at trial as State’s 

Exhibit 6. Id. at 149. Beamon looked at the pictures for “[a]bout ten minutes”

and handed them back to Allen. Id. at 151.

[4] Williams then drove the three of them to her apartment on Emerson Avenue 

near 39th Street on the east side of Indianapolis, parked near a common 

entrance to the building, and Williams went inside. Allen removed his 

belongings from the car and set them on the sidewalk while Beamon sat in the 

rear seat on the driver’s side with the door open. As Beamon was about to exit

the car, he heard at first a sound like firecrackers coming from behind the car,

heard the sound of loud gunfire, and saw three men walking toward the front of 

the car and shooting at them. Beamon recognized two of the men from the 

pictures that Allen had recently shown him as J Rock and Little Rock. 

[5] Before exiting the vehicle, Beamon was shot in the stomach and leg. Despite 

the gunshots, he managed to run south on Emerson and conceal himself near

some bushes in front of one of the apartment buildings. He took off his belt to 

use as a tourniquet on his arm and then called 911 on his cell phone. When 

police cars arrived, Beamon walked into Emerson Avenue, flagged down a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 4 of 28

squad car, and told the police officer that Little Rock and J Rock shot him.

Allen was killed by the gunfire.

[6] At the hospital the next day, Beamon gave a statement to Detective Leslie 

VanBuskirk and identified Beasley as J Rock and Leandrew as Little Rock as

participants in the shooting from photo arrays.

1 After the interview, Detective 

VanBuskirk retrieved the photographs that the coroner had recovered from the 

right front pocket of Allen’s pants, made blowups of them, and returned to the 

hospital to show them to Beamon, and Beamon identified J Rock and Little 

Rock in one of the blowups later admitted as State’s Exhibit 178, which was a 

blowup of State’s Exhibit 6. Detective VanBuskirk also conferred with 

Detective John Green, who had interviewed Leandrew on August 2, 2012, after 

Leandrew went to Methodist Hospital to receive treatment for a graze gunshot 

wound to his face. 

[7] On October 17, 2012, the State filed initial informations against Beasley and 

Leandrew, which, as subsequently amended, charged Beasley and Leandrew 

with Count I, murder; Count II, attempted murder as a class A felony; and 

Count III, battery as a class C felony. Beasley was later arrested out of state 

and was extradited to Indiana. On October 30, 2013, Beasley filed a motion in 

limine which, in relevant part, sought to exclude as hearsay the statements 

made by Allen to Beamon, along with a memorandum in support of the 

 

1 Detective VanBuskirk testified at trial that she prepared photo arrays of Beasley and Leandrew based upon 

Beamon’s statements to officers at the crime scene that he had been shot by Little Rock and J Rock. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 5 of 28

motion. Leandrew, who was tried jointly with Beasley, filed a similar motion 

the same day. On November 20, 2013, the State filed its response to the 

motions in limine, and, following a hearing on the motions, filed a second 

response on January 10, 2014. The court held another hearing on the motions 

on February 6, 2014, and on February 21, 2014, it issued an order denying 

them. In the order, the court found that the statements were admissible under 

Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) as statements against interest.

[8] A jury trial commenced on April 14, 2014, in which evidence consistent with 

the foregoing was presented. At the outset of trial, the court denied a defense 

motion to reconsider the denial of the motions in limine. The court also 

overruled at trial defense counsel’s objections to the admission of the evidence 

which was the subject of the motions in limine. Beamon testified regarding 

what Allen had told him about the altercation of August 2, 2012, and he

identified, based on his perceptions at the scene, Beasley and Leandrew as two 

of the shooters on August 3, 2012. When asked to describe the moment when 

he witnessed the shooters approaching the vehicle, Beamon testified that “[i]t 

was messed up because after lookin at the pictures and then you look up and 

you see the people right before your eyes that was in the picture you like wow 

and it . . . messed me up . . . it was surreal.” Id. at 351. He also indicated that 

his identification of the shooters was not “just a particular feature of the 

picture” and instead “was body type and face and hair and the way they were 

shaped . . . .” Id. at 352. Also, regarding the August 2, 2012 altercation, Officer 

Jeremy Lee testified that he interviewed Leandrew that evening at Methodist 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 6 of 28

Hospital, where he was being treated for a graze wound to the face, and that 

Leandrew told Officer Lee he was shot by an unknown assailant as he was 

walking on the sidewalk near 25th and Hillside. Detective Green testified that 

he interviewed Leandrew later that night at police headquarters in which 

Leandrew repeated a similar version of events. 

[9] On April 17, 2014, the court granted a defense motion for a directed verdict on 

Count III, which pertained to both defendants. During deliberations, the jury 

submitted the following question to the court: “One of the jurors is concerned 

for their safety and well-being because they recognize someone in the gallery 

and that is influencing their decision, is there any assurance of safety we can 

give this juror?” Appellant’s Appendix at 145. The court ordered the jury to 

stop deliberations and proceeded to interview each juror, beginning with the 

juror having the issue, Juror No. 9. Juror No. 9 told the court that she 

“interacted with” the person “awhile back and [] knew their face,” and she 

believed she would “see them again or interact with them again.” Transcript at 

728. She stated she saw the person that day after lunch, during deliberations 

she could not decide on a verdict, and that when she was asked why she 

“expressed [her] opinion” she stated that she was concerned for her safety. Id.

at 729. She also said that there was “[v]ery little” discussion about the issue 

and that she did not believe that her discussions had an influence on the jury. 

Id. She said that she “thought [her] safety might be jeopardized if [she] were 

not to return the right verdict” because she was “acquainted with the kind of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 7 of 28

people that they were,” referring to persons associated with the defendants. Id.

at 733.

[10] The court proceeded to individually question the rest of the empaneled jurors, 

and each juror assured the court that the statements by Juror No. 9 would not 

influence their deliberations. Specifically, Juror No. 2 stated that the concerns 

expressed by Juror No. 9 did not affect how he/she2 viewed the case and that 

“it’s a personal concern for her.” Id. at 738. Juror No. 5, when asked whether 

the concerns expressed by Juror No. 9 would have an effect, stated “[n]o, 

absolutely not,” that it did not change his/her “perspective in any way” and 

that, other than with respect to Juror No. 9, it would not change the other 

jurors’ “ability to deliberate or their perspective.” Id. at 743. Juror No. 6 stated 

that the other jurors were “just showing concern for [Juror No. 9] really.” Id. at 

746. Juror No. 10 stated: “I do not think it changed anyone’s verdict.” Id. at 

753. 

[11] After speaking with the jurors individually, the court stated that it thought Juror 

No. 9 would be removed, but “[b]ased on every jurors’ response, I’m satisfied 

that the rest of the jury’s not tainted and I believe we can substitute alternate 

one in for” her. Id. at 760. Counsel for Leandrew moved for a mistrial, and 

Beasley’s counsel joined in that request. The court denied their motion, 

reiterating that it did not believe the integrity of the jury had been 

 

2 The transcript does not indicate the gender of Jurors No. 2 or 5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 8 of 28

compromised, and ruled that it would remove Juror No. 9 and replace her with 

Alternate Juror No. 1. After replacing Juror No. 9, the court admonished the 

jury as follows: “We have replaced juror number nine with the first alternate 

juror. The reasons for the removal of juror nine and her replacement by the 

alternate juror number one need not be discussed and I’d admonish you from 

discussing any of the – the rationale behind that.” Id. at 767. 

[12] The jury found Beasley guilty on Counts I and II.3 On May 9, 2014, the court 

held a sentencing hearing and sentenced Beasley to fifty-five years for Count I, 

murder, and twenty years for Count II, attempted murder, to be served 

consecutively. 

Discussion

I.

[13] The first issue is whether the court abused its discretion in admitting certain 

statements made by Allen regarding an altercation the night before he was 

killed. Generally, we review the trial court’s ruling on the admission or 

exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Roche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 

1115, 1134 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied. We reverse only where the decision is 

clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Joyner v. 

State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied. Even if the trial court’s 

 

3 Leandrew was similarly found guilty on each count. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 9 of 28

decision was an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse if the admission 

constituted harmless error. Fox v. State, 717 N.E.2d 957, 966 (Ind. Ct. App.

1999), reh’g denied, trans. denied.

[14] Beasley argues that the court abused its discretion when it admitted the 

statements made by Allen to Beamon under Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3)

because “Allen never acknowledged any criminal responsibility on his part” 

and that the story repeated by Beamon “was of a man who defended himself 

against the attempted violent act of another person,” i.e., self-defense. 

Appellant’s Brief at 12. Beasley maintains that, in Allen’s mind, Allen did 

nothing wrong, and accordingly there is nothing to suggest that Allen “believed 

he was saying something against his penal interests so as to make the hearsay 

statement more reliable.” Id. Beasley notes that the “court found in its order 

that ‘... it is a stretch to suggest that the victim knew of the legal jeopardy he 

placed himself in by admitting his actions during the August 2 altercation.’” Id. 

He points to the Indiana Supreme Court case of Jervis v. State, 679 N.E.2d 875 

(Ind. 1997), in which the Court “rejected the contention ‘... that it is sufficient if 

the statement merely arouses some suspicion of culpability in the factual 

context of the case’” and held that “[i]f the declarant does not believe the 

statement to be against his interest, the rationale for the exception fails.” Id. at 

14-15 (quoting Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 878, 879 n.6). Beasley further argues that 

the error was not harmless because “[t]he sole basis to establish a motive and 

the primary basis for the identification of the defendants was the hearsay of 

James Allen through Gerald Beamon” and that “[a]bsent the connection to the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 10 of 28

incident the night before, it is more than likely that the uncorroborated 

identification by Beamon would have been viewed by the jurors in a different 

light.” Id. at 16. He also contends that “[t]he erroneous admission of this 

improper hearsay is also problematic because it renders irrelevant and, therefore 

inadmissible, the testimony of Detective Green regarding his knowledge about 

the shooting the night before.” Id. at 17. 

[15] The State argues that “[a] statement against the declarant’s penal interest is one 

that tends to subject the declarant to criminal liability such that a reasonable 

person would not have made it unless he believed it to be true.” Appellee’s 

Brief at 9. It maintains that Allen’s statement to Beamon regarding the first 

altercation “clearly would have exposed [him] to penal consequences had the 

defendants reported it to the police rather than seeking personal vengeance.” 

Id. at 10. It states that “Allen’s rendition of the altercation might well have 

provided a self-defense claim, [but] that does not equate with no criminal 

consequences because he could have been charged and would then have to 

defend himself . . . .” Id. at 12. The State also argues that “any error in the 

admission of Allen’s statement to Beamon was harmless in light of the fact that 

Beamon clearly identified [Beasley] and [Leandrew] as two of the shooters that 

he observed.” Id. at 13.

[16] In his reply brief, Beasley asserts that the State’s argument controverts the 

Court’s statements in Jervis, and that “[t]he erroneously admitted evidence here 

was the sole basis to establish motive and show a connection between Mr. Allen 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 11 of 28

and Mr. Beasley and it was the primary basis for the identification of the 

defendants.” Appellant’s Reply Brief at 6. 

[17] Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at 

trial, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Ind. 

Evidence Rule 801(c). Hearsay is inadmissible unless admitted pursuant to a 

recognized exception. Ind. Evidence Rule 802; see also Blount v. State, 22 

N.E.3d 559, 565 (Ind. 2014) (“Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for 

the truth of the matter asserted, and it is generally not admissible as evidence.”) 

(internal citations and quotations omitted).

[18] The parties do not dispute that the testimony given by Beamon regarding 

Allen’s statements were admitted for the truth of the matter asserted: that 

Leandrew drew a gun on Allen and a fight ensued, resulting in Leandrew being 

wounded in the cheek when a gunshot grazed it. The court admitted Beamon’s 

testimony regarding the statements made to him by Allen under Ind. Evidence 

Rule 804(b)(3) as statements against interest. That rule provides that if a 

declarant is unavailable as a witness, the court may admit

[a] statement that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position 

would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, 

when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or 

pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the 

declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to 

civil or criminal liability.

[19] In Jervis, the Indiana Supreme Court examined the application of the statement 

against interest exception where defendant Jervis sought to introduce the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 12 of 28

testimony of Marilyn Molinet to show that not he but another person, Tony 

Floyd, murdered Terri Boyer. 679 N.E.2d at 878-880. The court held an 

admissibility hearing outside the presence of the jury in which Molinet 

testified that on the morning after Boyer’s body was found, Floyd told 

her at work that he had gone out “partying” two nights earlier (the 

same night Boyer was killed), picked up a woman at Frenchie’s, gone 

“riding around” with her, and then “dumped her off” behind 

Newburgh Cinema around 3 or 4 a.m. Molinet also testified that 

Floyd told her that he knew “the best way to kill a girl” and put his 

hands around his own neck to indicate strangulation, and that Floyd, 

who appeared to be “awful nervous,” asked Molinet to be on the 

lookout for “detective cars.” Floyd did not refer to Boyer by name.

Id.

[20] The Court observed that the focus of the parties’ arguments centered “on the 

extent to which a statement against penal interest must have ‘so far tended to 

subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability . . . that a reasonable person in 

the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless believing it 

to be true,’”

4

that the State contended such “a statement against penal interest 

must be incriminating on its face to be admissible under this exception” and 

 

4 At the time of Jervis, Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) stated in relevant part:

Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the 

declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or 

criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable 

person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be 

true. . . .

We find the language in the previous rule regarding a statement which “so far tended to subject the declarant 

to civil or criminal liability” to be substantially similar to the current language contemplating a statement 

which “had so great a tendency to . . . expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 13 of 28

that “Jervis, by contrast, essentially argue[d] that it is sufficient if the statement 

merely arouses some suspicion as to culpability in the factual context of the 

case.” Id. The Court agreed with the State that the trial court “was within its 

discretion in rejecting” the proffered evidence, holding that such statements 

“did not even ‘tend to subject’ Floyd to criminal liability” and “[a]t most, they 

cast suspicion on Floyd when paired with other information that may or may 

not have been known to Floyd.” Id. The Court also instructed trial courts to be 

“alert to evaluate the overall reliability of the proffered statement,” noting that

“[r]eliability is, after all, the ultimate justification for admission of statements 

against interest.” Id. The Court found that “[a]t the end of the day, the 

statements by Floyd [] were uncorroborated, only marginally against penal 

interest, and only marginally relevant.” Id. It further noted that the record did 

not show that Floyd even knew a murder had occurred or that such murder was 

accomplished by strangulation, and it stated that, “[w]ithout knowledge of 

Boyer’s death, Floyd could not have believed his statements to be inculpating,” 

citing to a treatise for the proposition that, “[i]f the declarant does not believe 

the statement to be against his interest, the rationale for the exception fails.” Id.

at 879, 879 n.6 (quoting 4 WEINSTEIN’S EVIDENCE ¶ 804(b)(3)[02], at 804-147 

(1996)). 

[21] At trial, Beamon indicated that Allen told him “that he had been involved in an 

altercation the night before” in a garage with “Little Rock,” in which “Levi . . . 

. Jay Rock and Little Billy” were also present. Transcript at 129-130. Beamon 

testified that as Allen “turned to bend and pick something up” he observed 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 14 of 28

Leandrew “reaching in his waistband” for a gun, and Allen “reached for it and 

they started strugglin over it.” Id. at 130-131. Beamon also testified that Allen 

told him that Allen “stoled” Leandrew, meaning that Allen “swung and 

punched him,” and as the two men fought for control of the gun it “went off 

and [Allen] shot Little Rock in the face.” Id. at 131-132. Beamon further stated

that Allen told him that soon after that shot fired, “the gun wouldn’t fire 

anymore so he pushed [Leandrew] and then started runnin.” Id. at 132.

[22] As the Court observed in Jervis, the rationale for allowing statements against 

interest into evidence is that the declarant would only make such a statement if 

it were true because the content of the statement goes against the declarant’s 

interests, and that this rationale fails if the declarant did not believe the 

statement was against his or her interest. The rules of evidence assume that 

such statements are reliable precisely because they are against the interest of the 

declarant. Here, none of the statements attributed to Allen are facially 

incriminating and rather suggest that Allen was forced to defend himself from 

an attack by Leandrew after Allen bent down to pick something up. Indeed, 

even the trial court in its ruling stated that “it is a stretch to suggest that [Allen] 

knew of the legal jeopardy he placed himself in by admitting his actions during 

the August 2 altercation.” Appellant’s Appendix at 90. Under the 

circumstances, in which Allen told his cousin Beamon about an episode the 

evening before in which he was forced to defend himself from an attack by 

Leandrew, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it 

admitted such statements as statements against interest under Ind. Evidence 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 15 of 28

Rule 804(b)(3). See Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 233 (Ind. 2009) (noting that 

the hearsay exception provided by Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) was not 

available because none of the statements seeking to be admitted “constituted 

‘an admission of a crime’ or ‘tended to subject [the declarant] to criminal 

liability’”), reh’g denied; Tolliver v. State, 922 N.E.2d 1272, 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2010) (noting that “as a general matter, to qualify under this hearsay exception, 

the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face” (citing Jervis, 

679 N.E.2d at 878)), trans. denied.

[23] This does not end our analysis, however. An error will be found harmless if its 

probable impact on the jury, in light of all of the evidence in the case, is 

sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties. Gault v. 

State, 878 N.E.2d 1260, 1267-1268 (Ind. 2008). In this case one of the victims, 

Beamon, survived the shooting and testified at trial. Beamon specifically 

testified that he observed the shooters approach, and he identified Beasley and 

Leandrew as two of the shooters. When asked to describe the moment when he 

witnessed the shooters approaching the vehicle, Beamon testified that “[i]t was 

messed up because after lookin at the pictures and then you look up and you see 

the people right before your eyes that was in the picture you like wow and it . . . 

messed me up . . . it was surreal.” Transcript at 351. He indicated that his 

identification of the shooters was not “just a particular feature of the picture” 

and instead “was body type and face and hair and the way they were shaped . . 

. .” Id. at 352. He also identified both Beasley and Leandrew from photo 

arrays prepared by Detective VanBuskirk the day after the shooting.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 16 of 28

[24] Also, we disagree with Beasley that the testimony of Officer Lee and Detective 

Green, regarding their interviews with Leandrew the night before the shooting

when Leandrew sought medical attention for a gunshot wound to his face,

would have been deemed irrelevant and inadmissible or otherwise prejudicial 

under Ind. Evidence Rule 403. Leandrew was identified at the scene by 

Beamon as one of three shooters who, on August 3, 2012, in broad daylight, 

descended upon a vehicle and fired many shots, resulting in Allen’s death and 

serious bodily injury to Beamon. We cannot say that the fact Leandrew had on 

the previous night been the victim of a graze gunshot wound was irrelevant in 

determining whether he participated in the shooting. To meet the test for 

relevance under Ind. Evidence Rule 401, evidence is relevant if it “has any 

tendency to make a fact more or less probable . . . .” We believe this evidence 

meets this standard. Although standing alone the fact that Leandrew was the 

victim of a gunshot would not subject him or Beasley to a murder prosecution, 

its occurrence is certainly relevant given its proximity to the time of the 

shooting the following day, the manner of the shooting, and most importantly 

the identification at the scene of both Beasley and Leandrew by Beamon.

[25] Moreover, we do not believe Ind. Evidence Rule 403 would require its 

exclusion. In order for evidence to be excluded under Rule 403, “its probative 

value [must be] substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the 

following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue 

delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” In applying the 

balancing test of Evidence Rule 403, the trial court has “wide latitude,” and its 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 17 of 28

determination is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Willingham v. State, 794 

N.E.2d 1110, 1116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). The Indiana Supreme Court has 

“emphasized that the relevant inquiry is not merely whether the matter is 

prejudicial to the defendant’s interests, but whether ‘it is unfairly prejudicial.’” 

Baer v. State, 866 N.E.2d 752, 763 (Ind. 2007) (quoting Steward v. State, 652 

N.E.2d 490, 499 (Ind. 1995), reh’g denied), reh’g denied, cert. denied 552 U.S. 

1313, 128 S. Ct. 1869 (2008). All relevant evidence necessarily is “prejudicial” 

in a criminal prosecution, and the danger of unfair prejudicial impact “arises 

from the potential for a jury to substantially overestimate the value of the 

evidence, or its potential to arouse or inflame the passions or sympathies of the 

jury.” Wages v. State, 863 N.E.2d 408, 412 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), reh’g denied, 

trans. denied. We believe that the court would have been within its discretion

under the circumstances to rule that evidence of Leandrew seeking medical 

attention for a graze gunshot wound to the face on the night prior to the 

shooting was not unfairly prejudicial to the defendants.5

[26] We conclude that while the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the 

hearsay statements of Allen through Beamon’s testimony, this error was 

harmless. See Tolliver, 922 N.E.2d at 1281 (noting that any error in admitting 

hearsay statements as statements against interest under Ind. Evidence Rule 

804(b)(3) was harmless where independent eyewitness testimony identified 

 

5 Although the statements of Allen were inadmissible because they do not fall under an exception to the

hearsay rule, we believe, as did the trial court, that they are nevertheless reliable precisely because they are 

corroborated by the fact that Leandrew sought medical attention for a gunshot wound to his face.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 18 of 28

Tolliver as the shooter and other testimony linked Tolliver to the type of gun 

used to kill the victim).

II.

[27] The next issue is whether the court erred in denying Beasley’s motion for 

mistrial after Juror No. 9 told the other jurors that she recognized a person in 

the gallery and was concerned for her safety and well-being. A trial court is in 

the best position to evaluate whether a mistrial is warranted because it can 

assess first-hand all relevant facts and circumstances and their impact on the 

jury. Ramirez v. State, 7 N.E.3d 933, 935 (Ind. 2014) (citing Kelley v. State, 555 

N.E.2d 140, 141 (Ind. 1990)). We therefore review denial of a motion for 

mistrial only for an abuse of discretion. Id. (citing Gregory v. State, 540 N.E.2d 

585, 589 (Ind. 1989)). However, the correct legal standard for a mistrial is a 

pure question of law, which we review de novo. Id. (citing Hartman v. State, 988 

N.E.2d 785, 788 (Ind. 2013)).

[28] Beasley argues that “[t]he prejudice caused by juror number 9 stemmed . . . 

from the impact of the comments she made to her fellow jurors regarding the 

character of this man and, implicitly, the character of the defendants with 

whom he associated.” Appellant’s Brief at 19. Beasley suggests that although 

“[t]he other jurors professed . . . that the comments . . . did not influence their 

opinion or their deliberations . . . . this would be impossible.” Id. at 20. He 

argues that “[t]he egregious circumstances in this case,” including the fact that 

the jury was “well into deliberations before [Juror No. 9] told the court about 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 19 of 28

this man she knew from the past” in violation of the jury instructions, warrant 

“an irrebuttable presumption” of prejudice as enunciated in Ramirez, and that 

even if the irrebuttable presumption did not apply, he is entitled to a 

presumption of prejudice under Ramirez. Id. at 21. He further asserts that even 

if no presumption applies “there has still been an adequate showing to warrant 

reversal” pursuant to “a probable harm standard for juror misconduct ‘... 

granting a new trial only if the misconduct is gross and probably harmed the 

defendant.’” Id. at 24 (quoting Ramirez, 7 N.E.3d at 939). In support of this 

argument, Beasley asserts that “[t]his case is analogous to cases where a juror 

lies on voir dire about knowing about the case.” Id. at 25.

[29] The State contends that the concept of “an irrebuttable presumption of 

prejudice . . . applies only in the arena of extraneous influences on the jury, 

such as unauthorized contacts and communications with jurors,” which did not 

occur. Appellee’s Brief at 15. It argues that trial courts “are given significant 

leeway under Indiana Trial Rule 47(B) in determining whether to replace a 

juror with an alternate juror.” Id. The State notes that “[r]emoval of a juror 

after deliberations have commenced . . . raises a number of considerations not 

present when a juror is removed prior to deliberations” and that in such 

instances “discharge of a juror is warranted only in the most extreme situations 

. . . .” Id. at 16. It states that “a trial court is in the best position to gauge the 

impact of a particular event upon the jury; therefore, the decision whether to

grant or deny a mistrial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court . . 

. .” Id. The State further says that “[h]ere, the remaining jurors all informed 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 20 of 28

the trial court that Juror #9’s safety concerns would not have any influence on 

their deliberations,” noting further that the court “admonished the jurors not to 

discuss or consider Juror #9’s concerns while deliberating” which “is usually 

considered a sufficient curative measure so that the refusal to grant a mistrial 

motion is not reversible error.” Id. at 17.

[30] In Ramirez, the Indiana Supreme Court set out to clarify the law regarding the 

various standards courts should apply on suspected jury taint, noting that 

previous decisions were inconsistent. 7 N.E.3d at 935. The facts of Ramirez are 

as follows:

Five days into Ramirez’s trial for murder and criminal gang activity, 

Juror 282 wrote a note to the trial court about an incident at her home 

the night before: “I was out to eat and my neighbor called me and said 

that the neighbor below me heard gunshots upstairs and running 

around and told them I was a jury member in a case.” She also told 

the other jurors of this incident. The trial court excused Juror 282 

from the jury after she said that she could not render an impartial 

verdict. Ramirez moved for a mistrial, arguing that Juror 282’s 

disclosure of the incident to the other jurors “taint[ed] the whole jury” 

and prevented a “fair trial.” After interviewing all the jurors outside 

the presence of the jury with counsel present, the trial court denied 

Ramirez’s motion, finding that Juror 282’s incident was coincidental 

and the jury could remain impartial.

Id. at 934.

[31] The Court discussed the historical underpinnings of Indiana’s case law on the 

subject of when a presumption of prejudice applies, specifically discussing 

Currin v. State, which held that “‘a rebuttable presumption of prejudice arises 

from juror misconduct involving out-of-court communications with 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 21 of 28

unauthorized persons’—but that ‘such misconduct must be based on proof, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that an extra-judicial contact or communication 

occurred, and that it pertained to a matter pending before the jury.’” Id. at 936-

937 (quoting Currin v. State, 497 N.E.2d 1045, 1046 (Ind. 1986)). The Court 

also noted that Indiana precedent has “carved out a very narrow set of 

egregious circumstances in which [] prejudice . . . is not merely presumed, but 

automatically found; and the State will never be able to show harmless error.” 

Id. at 937 (citing May v. State, 716 N.E.2d 419, 422-423 (Ind. 1999); Kelley, 555 

N.E.2d at 141; Woods v. State, 233 Ind. 320, 323-324, 119 N.E.2d 558, 560-561 

(1954)). The Court explained that this irrebuttable presumption of prejudice 

was “aimed at identifying egregious ‘juror conduct with witnesses occurring 

contemporaneous to the trial proceeding,’” noting that such conduct was referred to 

in the case law as “prima facie prejudicial.” Id. (quoting May, 716 N.E.2d at 

422 (emphasis in original)). It then examined a number of decisions in which 

Indiana courts failed to apply the case law consistently. Id. at 938-939. 

[32] In Part III, titled “Clarification of Our Precedent,” the Court stated:

Defendants seeking a mistrial for suspected jury taint are entitled to the 

presumption of prejudice only after making two showings, by a 

preponderance of the evidence: (1) extra-judicial contact or 

communications between jurors and unauthorized persons occurred, 

and (2) the contact or communications pertained to the matter before 

the jury. The burden then shifts to the State to rebut this presumption 

of prejudice by showing that any contact or communications were 

harmless. If the State does not rebut the presumption, the trial court 

must grant a new trial. On the other hand, if a defendant fails to make 

the initial two-part showing, the presumption does not apply. Instead, 

the trial court must apply the probable harm standard for juror 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 22 of 28

misconduct, granting a new trial only if the misconduct is “gross and 

probably harmed” the defendant. Henri v. Curto, 908 N.E.2d 196, 202 

(Ind. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). But in egregious cases 

where juror conduct fundamentally compromises the appearance of 

juror neutrality, trial courts should skip Currin’s two-part inquiry, find 

irrebuttable prejudice, and immediately declare a mistrial. At all 

times, trial courts have discretion to decide whether a defendant has 

satisfied the initial two-part showing necessary to obtain the 

presumption of prejudice or a finding of irrebuttable prejudice.

Id. at 939 (certain internal citations omitted). The Court instructed trial courts 

to apply the presumption analysis of Currin according to the procedures 

outlined in Lindsey v. State, which requires courts to “immediately investigate 

suspected jury taint by thoroughly interviewing jurors collectively and 

individually, if necessary.” Id. (citing Lindsey v. State, 260 Ind. 351, 358-359, 

295 N.E.2d 819, 823-824 (1973)). The Court quoted Lindsey as follows:

If any of the jurors have been exposed, he must be individually 

interrogated by the court outside the presence of the other jurors, to 

determine the degree of exposure and the likely effect thereof. After 

each juror is so interrogated, he should be individually admonished. 

After all exposed jurors have been interrogated and admonished, the 

jury should be assembled and collectively admonished, as in the case 

of a finding of “no exposure.” If the imperiled party deems such 

action insufficient to remove the peril, he should move for a mistrial.

Id. at 940 (quoting Lindsey, 260 Ind. at 359, 295 N.E.2d at 824). It noted that 

“[o]nce defendants move for mistrial, the trial courts should assess whether or 

not there is enough evidence to meet the two-part showing under Currin” and: 

“If so, then the presumption of prejudice applies and the burden shifts to the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 23 of 28

State to prove harmless error. If not, then trial courts should determine whether 

a juror’s misconduct was gross or probably harmed the defendant.” Id. 

[33] The Court held that defendant Ramirez was not entitled to a presumption of 

prejudice “because he failed to show that Juror 282’s apartment incident was 

related to his case.” Id. The Court noted that “Juror 282 herself was not sure if 

her status as a juror triggered the apartment incident” and that “more 

importantly, her own narration strongly suggests that no one even entered her 

apartment.” Id. It further noted that “Juror 282’s disclosure of her experience 

to the rest of the jury, likewise, is not an extra-judicial communication that 

warrants a presumption of prejudice because most believed it was ‘coincidence’ 

or ‘dumb luck’—and only three jurors thought it might have been something 

more.” Id. It proceeded to analyze “whether Juror 282’s conduct was gross 

misconduct and probably harmed the defendant” and determined that it was 

not. Id. at 940-941. It specifically noted that “[i]t is not gross misconduct for a 

juror to discuss a possible apartment break-in with her neighbor” and that, 

although “[i]t may have been misconduct to discuss the incident with the other 

jurors,” “even if it was, the trial court remedied any possible harm by 

interviewing and excusing Juror 282, and then individually interviewing all 

remaining jurors outside the presence of the jury with counsel present to assess 

their ability to remain impartial.” Id. at 941. The Court concluded that “[a]ll 

jurors stated they could render a fair verdict, and Ramirez has given us no 

reason to doubt their assurances.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 24 of 28

[34] To the extent Beasley argues that the circumstances here warranted an 

irrebuttable presumption of prejudice, we find that nothing about Juror No. 9’s 

conduct fundamentally compromised the appearance of neutrality. Again, an 

irrebuttable presumption is reserved for instances of egregious juror conduct

involving witnesses occurring contemporaneous to the trial proceeding. Here, 

not only was the person concerning Juror No. 9 not a witness, but also she did 

not have contact with that person. We cannot say that an irrebuttable 

presumption of prejudice applies in this case. Cf. May, 716 N.E.2d at 420 

(granting a new trial based on prima facie prejudice after a juror’s conversation 

with a witness ended with an invitation for the juror to come over to the 

witness’s house to watch a pay-per-view boxing match); Kelley, 555 N.E.2d at 

141 (finding an irrebuttable presumption of prejudice applied after three jurors 

ate lunch with the State’s sole witness, and the witness was overheard stating “I 

seen him do it,” and one of the jurors responded, “I could see him do that”); 

Woods, 233 Ind. at 323, 119 N.E.2d at 560 (finding an irrebuttable presumption 

of prejudice where three state witnesses—two police officers and the sheriff—

repeatedly visited jury members in a room where the jury congregated during 

recesses and intermissions).

[35] Regarding whether Beasley is entitled to a presumption of prejudice under 

Currin, we find that Beasley is not entitled to such a presumption because he 

failed to show that extra-judicial contact or communications between jurors and 

unauthorized persons occurred. Indeed, the record does not suggest that any 

extra-judicial contact or communications occurred at all. The record reflects 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 25 of 28

that Juror No. 9 noticed a person sitting in the gallery who she recognized and 

who caused concern for her safety. Beyond sitting in proximity of one another 

while in the courtroom, the record does not suggest any type of interaction 

between Juror No. 9 and the person in the gallery. In order for the Currin

presumption to attach, the defendant must show by a preponderance of the 

evidence that extra-judicial contact occurred. Not having done so, Beasley is 

not entitled to a presumption of prejudice.

[36] We must therefore apply the probable harm standard for juror misconduct, 

granting a new trial only if the misconduct is “gross and probably harmed” the 

defendant, which we review for an abuse of discretion.

6

 See Henri, 908 N.E.2d 

at 202. Beasley suggests that Juror No. 9 was guilty of gross misconduct “in 

that she ignored the clear and unequivocal instruction of the trial court and 

infected the rest of the jury with her knowledge about the man in the courtroom 

who was associated with the defendants” and that “[t]his case is analogous to 

cases where a juror lies on voir dire about knowing about the case,” which 

“generally entitles the defendant to a new trial.” Appellant’s Brief at 24-25. In 

support, he points to Jury Instruction 20, which instructed the jury that “[i]f, at 

any time, you realize you know something about the case or know a witness or 

 

6 The State in its brief cites to the “grave peril” standard found in certain cases. We note that the Court in 

Ramirez mentioned that standard during its discussion of how the presumption of prejudice has previously 

been inconsistently applied, and it noted specifically when applying the law to defendant Ramirez that while 

the “trial court should have analyzed whether Juror 282’s conduct was gross misconduct and probably 

harmed the defendant . . . [it] applied the grave peril standard instead.” 7 N.E.3d at 938, 940-941. Thus, the 

Court appears to have abrogated the application of a “grave peril” standard in this context.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 26 of 28

the defendant, you must inform the bailiff privately at your earliest 

opportunity.” Id. at 22 (citing Appellant’s Appendix at 123).

[37] Juror No. 9’s statements to the other jurors that she recognized someone sitting 

in the gallery which made her concerned for her safety did not violate Jury 

Instruction 20 because her statements did not concern the facts of the case nor a 

witness or defendant. In evaluating whether Juror No. 9’s statements otherwise 

constituted gross misconduct, we find that the conduct at issue here falls short 

of that threshold. For instance, this court found that a juror’s misconduct was 

gross and probably harmed the defendant in Dickenson v. State, 732 N.E.2d 238 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2000). In that case, during voir dire, potential juror Tammy Lane

was asked whether she had a relationship with the defendant or potential 

witnesses that would affect her ability to be an impartial juror, and she “did not 

acknowledge that she had such a relationship with Dickenson, who had been 

her neighbor during childhood” and instead “stated that she knew a few of the 

potential witnesses, but that her ability to weigh the testimony of those 

witnesses would not be affected.” 732 N.E.2d at 240. She also did not respond 

when asked whether she had prior knowledge about the facts of the case. Id. 

Lane was chosen as a juror, and following the verdict of guilty a member of 

Dickenson’s family recognized her while she was being examined. Id. Further 

investigation revealed that Lane “had lied about her relationship to witness 

Karen Stinnett [], who was the victim’s wife, and her pre-trial knowledge of the 

case.” Id. On post-conviction, this court reversed and ordered a new trial, 

concluding that Lane’s act of lying during voir dire constituted juror misconduct 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 27 of 28

and that “because the evidence reveals that juror Lane had knowledge of the 

case prior to trial, and was friendly with the victim’s wife, who testified at trial . 

. . the misconduct was gross and probably harmed the defendant.” Id. at 242.

[38] Here, by contrast, Juror No. 9 did not lie or otherwise make misrepresentations. 

She became concerned for her safety late in the trial, and she divulged her 

concerns during deliberations. When the court learned of her concerns, it 

ordered that deliberations cease and interviewed each juror individually, 

starting with Juror No. 9. Each of the remaining jurors assured the court that 

the statements by Juror No. 9 would not influence their deliberations. Juror 

No. 2 noted that “it’s a personal concern for” Juror No. 9. Transcript at 738. 

Juror No. 5, stated that it did not change his/her “perspective in any way” and 

that, other than with respect to Juror No. 9, it would not change the other 

jurors’ “ability to deliberate or their perspective.” Id. at 743. Juror No. 6 stated 

that the other jurors were “just showing concern for [Juror No. 9] really.” Id. at 

746. Juror No. 10 stated: “I do not think it changed anyone’s verdict.” Id. at 

753. The court then decided to remove Juror No. 9 and replace her with 

Alternate Juror No. 1 and admonished the jury by instructing them not to 

discuss the reasons for Juror No. 9’s dismissal.

[39] Based on the foregoing, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion when 

it denied Beasley’s motion for mistrial. See Henri, 908 N.E.2d at 202-204

(holding that the defendant failed to show misconduct which was gross and 

probably harmed the defendant based upon claims that one juror’s receipt of a 

cell phone call created pressure to reach a hasty verdict, and that the alternate 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1406-CR-253 | April 29, 2015 Page 28 of 28

juror communicated with the regular jurors during deliberations); see also 

Weisheit v. State, 26 N.E.3d 3, 13-14 (Ind. 2015) (holding that the trial court did 

not err in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial after it was discovered 

that one of the jurors delivered cookies to the jury room baked by his wife 

which contained an attached note stating “Thank you for your service for the 

family of Alyssa [and] Caleb Lynch. I will pray for you all to have strength and 

wisdom to deal with the days ahead. God bless!” the court interviewed each 

juror individually and determined that the note had no impact on the jurors, 

and it removed the juror who brought the cookies and replaced the juror with 

an alternate).

Conclusion

[40] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Beasley’s convictions for murder and 

attempted murder, a class A felony.

[41] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.