Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-713 | February 26, 2020 Page 1 of 14

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Matthew J. McGovern

Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Courtney Staton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James Patrick Duffy,

Appellant-Defendant,

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

February 26, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-713 

Appeal from the Floyd Circuit 

Court

The Honorable J. Terrence Cody, 

Judge 

Trial Court Cause No.

22C01-1611-MR-2284 

Tavitas, Judge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-713 | February 26, 2020 Page 2 of 14

Case Summary

[1] James Duffy appeals his convictions and sentences for murder, a felony; armed 

robbery, a Level 3 felony; and auto theft, a Level 6 felony. We affirm.

Issues

[2] Duffy raises three issues, which we consolidate and restate as:

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding

the videotaped interview of a witness and whether the 

exclusion denied Duffy his right to present a defense.

II. Whether Duffy’s sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[3] Sixty-eight-year-old Lewis Morrison worked at the American Legion post near 

his Floyds Knobs residence. Morrison often carried a black bag, which 

contained a large amount of cash, and Morrison also carried large amounts of 

cash in his wallet. Morrison was a friend of Stacie Chapman’s mother. 

Chapman needed a place to live, and in January 2016, Morrison allowed 

Chapman to move into the basement apartment of his residence.

[4] In the early morning hours of November 5, 2016, Chapman and her friends, 

Duffy, Chelsea Wilson, and Brad Benningfield used methamphetamine in

Chapman’s basement apartment. At approximately 5:00 a.m., Duffy, Wilson, 

and Benningfield left the residence, and Chapman went to a nearby 

McDonald’s to get breakfast. Morrison arrived at the American Legion at 5:38

a.m. for work. Chapman returned to Morrison’s home to eat her breakfast and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-713 | February 26, 2020 Page 3 of 14

was at the residence when Morrison returned from the American Legion 

shortly after 7:00 a.m. As Chapman was getting ready, Duffy called her and 

asked what she was doing. Chapman told Duffy that she was getting ready to 

go to Madison to see her uncle. At approximately 8:00 a.m., Chapman left the 

residence, stopped to run errands, and drove toward Madison. 

[5] Duffy, Wilson, and Benningfield were driving around in Duffy’s green Chrysler 

Sebring vehicle “killing some time,” but they intended to “rob [Morrison’s]

house.” Tr. Vol. VII p. 23. Duffy was aware that Morrison often carried 

significant amounts of cash. At approximately 8:15 a.m., Morrison’s neighbor 

saw a small green car with three occupants in the neighborhood. The neighbor 

saw a white male wearing a black hoodie and a black cap get out of the car and 

run toward Morrison’s residence. The neighbor then saw the other two 

occupants drive the car away from the neighborhood. According to Wilson, 

she and Benningfield dropped Duffy off at Morrison’s residence so that Duffy 

could rob Morrison. When Duffy got out of the vehicle, he had a 9-millimeter 

handgun. Duffy told Wilson “he’d meet back up with [her] after.” Id. at 26.

[6] Duffy’s vehicle was recorded on a school’s security camera leaving the area at 

8:18 a.m. Wilson and Benningfield went to a nearby gas station in Duffy’s 

vehicle. At 8:43 a.m., Duffy texted Wilson for her to pick him up at Morrison’s 

home. At 8:44 a.m., Duffy then texted Chapman, “Can I come by.” Ex. Vol. 

11 p. 89. Chapman responded that she was on her way to Madison. Duffy 

then texted Wilson not to come back to Morrison’s home. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-713 | February 26, 2020 Page 4 of 14

[7] At 12:30 p.m., a neighbor saw Morrison’s truck leave the subdivision with one 

occupant. Duffy, who was driving Morrison’s truck, met with Wilson at her 

friend’s house. Duffy told Wilson that he shot Morrison and said, “It was 

either him or me.” Tr. Vol. VII p. 27. Wilson then followed Duffy to 

Louisville, Kentucky, where he left Morrison’s truck in a parking lot. When he 

got into the vehicle with Wilson, Duffy was carrying a black drawstring bag and 

two handguns—the 9-millimeter handgun, which he had earlier, and a silver 

revolver. 

[8] When Chapman arrived home shortly before 1:00 p.m., the door to the 

basement was open, which was unusual. Chapman discovered Morrison

upstairs on the floor and called 911. Officer Andrew Benson was dispatched to 

Morrison’s residence and made contact with Chapman. Officer Benson entered 

the open door to the basement and saw muddy footprints on the carpet leading 

to the stairs. Officers entered the residence and discovered Morrison’s dead 

body. Morrison was face down on the floor of the laundry room near the door 

to the garage. Morrison’s white truck was missing.

[9] The basement had been “ransacked,” and muddy footprints led from the 

basement door to the stairwell leading upstairs. Tr. Vol. IV p. 11. The living 

room, which was located at the top of the stairwell, led into the kitchen and 

laundry room. The main level of the house had also been ransacked. A bullet 

hole was found in the wall near the top of the stairwell, and another bullet hole 

was found in a wall in the kitchen. Bullet holes and casings were found from 

the stairwell to the laundry room. In all, seven shots were fired.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-713 | February 26, 2020 Page 5 of 14

[10] Morrison sustained four gunshot wounds—three gunshot wounds to the back 

and one to the back of the head. The gunshot to the head and one of the 

gunshots to the back would have been fatal. The gunshot to the head would 

have caused “death within a couple minutes,” and the fatal gunshot to the back 

would have resulted in Morrison “coughing up blood” but still being “able to 

move around somewhat.” Id. at 167. 

[11] Evidence found at the scene demonstrated that Morrison confronted the 

intruder in the stairwell, and the intruder shot at Morrison. Morrison tried to 

escape through the living room and kitchen but was shot and fell in the laundry 

room. As Morrison was on the floor of the laundry room, he was shot another 

three times and died in the laundry room. 

[12] Upon learning that a small green car was seen in Morrison’s neighborhood that 

morning, the detectives questioned Chapman regarding the vehicle. Chapman 

identified Duffy as the possible owner and driver of the green vehicle. Officers 

located Duffy’s vehicle at his parents’ residence and learned that there was a 

warrant for Duffy’s arrest. When they arrived at the residence, Duffy and 

Wilson were in a pole barn next to the house. Wilson was helping Duffy count 

the money from Morrison’s residence at that time. Both Duffy and Wilson ran, 

but Wilson was quickly apprehended. Duffy ran into a nearby wooded area, 

and officers stopped pursuing Duffy after they heard a gunshot. In the pole 

barn, officers found a black bag, a glove, ammunition for a .38-caliber handgun, 

a couple of knives, a 9-millimeter magazine, and $1,429 in cash. The black bag 

was identified as belonging to Morrison. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-713 | February 26, 2020 Page 6 of 14

[13] Three or four hours later, a homeowner a few miles away called 911 to report 

that he found a sleeping man, later identified as Duffy, with two guns in his 

garage. The homeowner reported that he was holding the subject at gunpoint. 

Duffy was found in possession of a 9-millimeter Taurus handgun, a .38-caliber 

revolver, and $1,375.00 in cash. Morrison was the owner of the .38-caliber 

revolver. The 9-millimeter Taurus was later identified as the weapon used to 

shoot Morrison. 

[14] On November 7, 2016, the State charged Duffy with murder and armed 

robbery, a Level 3 felony. In a separate cause, the State charged Duffy with 

auto theft, a Level 6 felony. The State later moved to join the auto theft charge 

with the murder and armed robbery charges, which the trial court granted. The 

State also charged Wilson with murder and robbery. Wilson pleaded guilty to 

robbery, a Level 2 felony, and was sentenced to twenty years in the Department 

of Correction (“DOC”) with two years suspended.

[15] At Duffy’s January 2019 jury trial, Duffy sought to introduce Defendant’s 

Exhibit DDD, which was a videotaped interview of Wilson eleven days after 

Morrison’s death in which Wilson implicates Duffy.

1

 The State objected to the 

admission of the exhibit, and the trial court sustained the objection.

1 Duffy also sought to introduce Defendant’s Exhibit CCC, which was a recording of Wilson’s conversation 

with a detective after Wilson was arrested, in which she denied any involvement or knowledge of the 

incident. The trial court also sustained the State’s objection to the admission of this exhibit. On appeal, 

Duffy does not raise an argument regarding this exhibit.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-713 | February 26, 2020 Page 7 of 14

[16] The jury found Duffy guilty as charged. The trial court found four aggravators: 

(1) Duffy’s criminal history; (2) Morrison’s age; (3) Duffy was in violation of 

the conditions of his home detention when he committed these offenses; and (4) 

“the harm, injury, or loss, particularly the harm suffered by Mr. Morrison . . . 

was significant and was greater than the elements necessary to prove the 

commission of the crime of murder.” Tr. Vol. X p. 155. The trial court found 

no mitigating circumstances. The trial court sentenced Duffy to: sixty-five years 

for murder; sixteen years for armed robbery; and two and one-half years for 

auto theft. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively for 

an aggregate sentence of eighty-three and one-half years in the DOC. Duffy 

now appeals.

Analysis

I. Exclusion of Evidence

[17] Duffy argues that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Wilson’s 

police interview. The trial court has broad discretion to rule on the 

admissibility of evidence. Thomas v. State, 81 N.E.3d 621, 624 (Ind. 2017). We 

review rulings on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Id. 

An abuse of discretion occurs “when admission is clearly against the logic and 

effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id. “Errors in the admission or 

exclusion of evidence are to be disregarded as harmless error unless they affect 

the substantial rights of the party.” Turben v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1245, 1247 (Ind. 

2000); Ind. Trial Rule 61.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-713 | February 26, 2020 Page 8 of 14

[18] Relatedly, Duffy also argues that the exclusion of the statement violated his 

Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. 

The Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses in one’s defense 

applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19, 

87 S. Ct. 1920, 1923, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). “Just as an 

accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for 

the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to 

present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a 

fundamental element of due process of law.” Id. at 19, 87 S. Ct. 

at 1923.

Stickrod v. State, 108 N.E.3d 385, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied.

“[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, [however,] the 

court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S. Ct. 824, 828 (1967).

[19] At trial, Duffy argued that Wilson’s statement to the police was admissible as 

substantive evidence under Indiana Evidence Rule 801(d).

2

 On appeal, Duffy 

contends that the statement was admissible not to prove the truth of the matter, 

but rather “to challenge [Wilson’s] evolving narrative by showing her demeanor 

while articulating it.” Appellant’s Br. p. 20. Duffy argues that Wilson’s 

“credibility and demeanor while accusing Duffy of murder were essential for 

2 Duffy specifically did not seek to impeach Wilson with the statement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-713 | February 26, 2020 Page 9 of 14

the jury to assess whether she was telling the truth about Duffy or was simply 

trying to please law enforcement to get a beneficial plea agreement.” Id. at 21. 

[20] We need not address whether the statement was admissible as substantive 

evidence, however, because any error in the exclusion of the statement was 

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. During Wilson’s testimony, it was clear 

that Wilson was required to testify against Duffy as part of her plea agreement

and that the murder charge against Wilson was dismissed as part of the plea 

agreement. The jury was well aware of Wilson’s changing stories, plea 

agreement, substance abuse issues, criminal history, and credibility issues. The 

prior statement, which was, for the most part, consistent with her testimony, 

would not have further impacted Wilson’s credibility.

[21] Moreover, Duffy incorrectly argues that “this case came down to a credibility 

contest between [Wilson] and the defense” and that “[t]he primary and only 

direct evidence against Duffy was [Wilson’s] testimony.” Appellant’s Br. pp. 

22-23. Aside from Wilson’s testimony, there was significant evidence of 

Duffy’s involvement in the murder and robbery. Earlier that morning, Duffy 

was driving his green Chrysler Sebring. A neighbor saw a small green vehicle 

in front of Morrison’s residence on the morning of the robbery. The neighbor 

saw a man get out of the vehicle and run toward Morrison’s residence. That 

evening, when police attempted to arrest Duffy in his parents’ garage, Duffy 

and Wilson ran. Wilson was quickly apprehended, and Duffy was found a few 

hours later hiding in another garage. At Duffy’s parents’ garage, officers found 

a black bag, a glove, ammunition for a .38-caliber handgun, a couple of knives, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-713 | February 26, 2020 Page 10 of 14

a 9-millimeter magazine, and $1,429 in cash. The black bag was identified as 

belonging to Morrison. In the garage where Duffy was hiding, officers found a 

9-millimeter Taurus handgun, a .38-caliber revolver, and $1,375.00 in cash. 

Morrison was the owner of the .38-caliber revolver, and the 9-millimeter Taurus 

was later identified as the weapon used to shoot Morrison. 

[22] Given that Wilson’s credibility was already substantially challenged by Duffy 

and the overwhelming evidence of Duffy’s guilt, any error in the exclusion of 

Wilson’s statement to the police as substantive evidence is harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459, 470 (Ind. 2015)

(holding that the trial court’s ruling regarding a child molestation victim’s 

alleged prior false allegation of sexual misconduct was erroneous but that the 

error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the victim immediately 

reported the molestation, the defendant’s semen was present on the victim’s 

shorts, and the victim had fresh genital lacerations).

II. Inappropriate Sentence

[23] Duffy contends that his sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) 

provides that this court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due 

consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence “is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the 

offender.” The defendant bears the burden to persuade this court that his or her 

sentence is inappropriate. Wilson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 1259, 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2012) (citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)), trans. denied. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-713 | February 26, 2020 Page 11 of 14

[24] In Indiana, trial courts can tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances 

presented; the trial court’s judgment receives “considerable deference.” Sanders 

v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 

N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008)), trans. denied. In conducting our review, we do 

not look to see whether the defendant’s sentence is appropriate or “if another 

sentence might be more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence 

imposed is inappropriate.” Id. at 844 (citing King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2008)). When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, 

the advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an 

appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. 

[25] Here, Duffy was convicted of murder; armed robbery, a Level 3 felony; and 

auto theft, a Level 6 felony. The sentencing range for murder is forty-five to 

sixty-five years with an advisory sentence of fifty-five years. See Ind. Code § 35-

50-2-3. The trial court sentenced Duffy to sixty-five years in the DOC for the 

murder conviction. The sentencing range for a Level 3 felony is six to twenty 

years with an advisory sentence of ten years. See I.C. § 35-50-2-5. The trial 

court sentenced Duffy to sixteen years for the robbery conviction. The 

sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is six months to three years with an 

advisory sentence of one and one-half years. See I.C. § 35-50-2-7. The trial 

court sentenced Duffy to two and one-half years for the auto theft conviction. 

The trial court then ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for an 

aggregate sentence of eighty-three and one-half years in the DOC. Duffy 

requests that we revise his sentences to advisory, concurrent sentences.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-713 | February 26, 2020 Page 12 of 14

[26] Regarding the nature of the offense, Duffy argues that the “murder was not 

drawn out and was not committed with a brutality not already inherent in the 

nature of any murder offense.” Appellant’s Br. p. 32. We disagree. Duffy 

entered sixty-eight-year-old Morrison’s home with the intent to rob Morrison. 

Duffy, who was friends with Morrison’s tenant, Chapman, used 

methamphetamine in the basement apartment with Chapman earlier that 

morning, and was aware that Morrison often carried significant amounts of 

cash. Upon entering the home, Duffy started firing gunshots at Morrison and 

chased Morrison through the residence, firing at Morrison as Morrison tried to 

get away. 

[27] The evidence at the scene demonstrated that, as Morrison was entering the 

laundry room, a bullet struck his back and exited through his chin, and he fell

due to this “incapacitating shot.” Tr. Vol. VI p. 60. This wound would have 

resulted in Morrison “coughing up blood” but still being “able to move around 

somewhat.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 167. While Morrison was face down on the floor, 

Duffy “st[ood] over him” and shot Morrison another three times. Tr. Vol. VI p. 

60. One of those wounds was to the back of the head and would have caused 

“death within a couple minutes.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 167. Duffy then spent the next 

several hours ransacking Morrison’s residence. Duffy stole Morrison’s cash, 

gun, and vehicle. Later that day, when officers were attempting to take Duffy 

into custody, he ran and fired a gunshot. Duffy was found a few hours later

sleeping under a pool table in another homeowner’s garage with two guns—
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-713 | February 26, 2020 Page 13 of 14

including the gun used to kill Morrison—and part of Morrison’s cash. Duffy’s

depraved, heartless actions do not warrant a revision of his sentence.

[28] Regarding the character of the offender, Duffy argues none of his prior criminal 

offenses involve violence and he had a drug addiction. The record reveals that

twenty-seven-year-old Duffy began abusing substances at the age of twelve, 

eventually abusing marijuana, Xanax, pain pills, methamphetamine, and 

heroin. He had convictions for possession of a controlled substance (twice), 

unlawful possession of a syringe (three times), invasion of privacy, resisting law 

enforcement, public intoxication, and possession of methamphetamine. He had 

pending charges for escape, a Level 6 felony; burglary, a Level 5 felony;

criminal recklessness, a Level 6 felony; carrying a handgun without a license, a 

Class A misdemeanor; and carrying a handgun without a license, a Level 5 

felony. Duffy is a member of the Gaylords gang, and he was in violation of the 

conditions of his home detention when he committed these offenses. Although 

Duffy has had numerous opportunities to change his behavior, Duffy’s criminal 

conduct only escalated, leading to the instant offenses. Duffy’s criminal

activities demonstrate a disdain for the rule of law and reflect poorly on his 

character.

[29] Based on the foregoing, we cannot say that Duffy’s aggregate eighty-three and 

one-half year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and 

the character of the offender.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-713 | February 26, 2020 Page 14 of 14

Conclusion

[30] Any error in the exclusion of Wilson’s police interviews was harmless error. 

Duffy’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and 

the character of the offender. We affirm.

[31] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.