Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-613 | February 15, 2017 Page 1 of 7

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 D. Anglemeyer

Marion County Public Defender’s Office

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

George P. Sherman

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tyree Brodley,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

February 15, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1603-CR-613

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Sheila Carlisle, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G03-1405-MR-25053

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-613 | February 15, 2017 Page 2 of 7

Statement of the Case

[1] Tyree Brodley (“Brodley”) appeals his conviction of murder1following a bench 

trial. His sole contention is that the trial court committed fundamental error in 

admitting DNA evidence. Concluding that any error in the admission of this 

evidence was harmless because the conviction was supported by substantial 

independent evidence of Brodley’s guilt and that this evidence was cumulative 

of other evidence properly admitted, we affirm Brodley’s conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

The sole issue for our review is whether the trial court committed 

fundamental error in admitting DNA evidence.

Facts

[3] The evidence most favorable to the verdict reveals that on May 9, 2014, Brodley 

and Pashae Beech (“Pashae”), who were the parents of an infant, became 

involved in a verbal argument. At about 5:00 p.m., Pashae telephoned her 

mother, Janette Beech (“Beech”), and asked her to come over and take care of

the baby. When Beech arrived, Pashae and Brodley were yelling and cursing at 

each other. Beech joined the argument and began “really cussing” at Brodley. 

(Tr. 51). 

 

1

IND. CODE § 35-42-1-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-613 | February 15, 2017 Page 3 of 7

[4] Shortly thereafter, Beech’s son, Ahmed (“Ahmed”), and his friend Terrance 

Holmes (“Holmes”), arrived. Holmes and Pashae were close friends. Brodley, 

who feared that Holmes and Ahmed were going to “jump” him and who 

believed that Ahmed had previously stolen from him, grabbed two guns and left 

the house. (Tr. 66). At that time, Brodley was wearing a white tank top. At 

some point thereafter, Holmes and Ahmed also left the house.

[5] At approximately 9:00 p.m. that night, Len Thompson glanced out the window 

of his used auto sales office and noticed a group of men standing on the street 

corner. One of the men in this group was Holmes. Suddenly, the group 

separated into two smaller groups, and a man in a white tank top shot Holmes. 

Michael Dilley also saw the man in the white tank top shoot Holmes. When 

Holmes fell to the ground, “all hell broke loose.” (Tr. 199). Twenty to thirty 

shots went off, and the man in the white tank top took off running. He quickly 

“broke stride” and looked as if he had been shot and was going to fall. (Tr. 

201). 

[6] Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) Officer Michael 

Leeper found Brodley in an alley. Brodley had been shot in the leg. Holmes 

was found dead nearby. He had been shot three times with a .40 caliber gun. 

Officers found four different handguns at the scene, one of which was a Glock 

Model 27 .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun (“the Glock handgun”). The 

Glock handgun was found near Brodley. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-613 | February 15, 2017 Page 4 of 7

[7] When IMPD Officer Phillip Robinett (“Officer Robinett”) arrived at the scene, 

he recognized Brodley. Medics were just starting to cut off Brodley’s white tank 

top, which had blood on it. Officer Robinett also noticed beside Brodley a cell 

phone, which contained pictures of Brodley, his infant, and a Glock handgun 

with the serial number of the Glock handgun that was found at the scene.

[8] The State charged Brodley with Holmes’ murder. Dr. Muhammad Amjad 

(“Dr. Amjad”) performed DNA testing on the white tank top, but he did not 

testify at Brodley’s bench trial. Rather, laboratory supervisor Shelley Crispin 

(“Crispin”), who reviewed Dr. Amjad’s data and wrote the report, testified 

without objection that DNA testing revealed that the blood on the white tank 

top matched Brodley’s DNA. Also at trial, Beech and Detective Robinett both 

testified that Brodley had been wearing a white tank top. The trial court 

convicted Brodley of murder and sentenced him to fifty-five (55) years. Brodley 

appeals his conviction.

Decision

[9] Brodley’s sole contention is that the trial court erred in admitting Crispin’s 

testimony that DNA testing revealed that the blood on the white tank top 

matched Brodley’s DNA. Specifically, he argues that the “results of the DNA 

testing in this case violated Brodley’s Sixth Amendment rights to 

confrontation” because the “State called the laboratory control supervisor, 

Crispin, to testify about the unsworn hearsay testimony of the testing analyst, 

Dr. Amjad, instead of having Dr. Amjad testify and be available for crossexamination.” (Tr. 11, 17). According to Brodley, he “had the right to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-613 | February 15, 2017 Page 5 of 7

confront [Dr. Amjad] about his methodology and the results that flowed from 

it. Crispin had no personal knowledge about Dr. Amjad’s actions nor did she 

observe his testing. She could only rely on the data Dr. Amjad created.” (Tr. 

16).

[10] Brodley, however, failed to object at trial to the admission of the DNA 

evidence. In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a contemporaneous 

objection must be made when the evidence is introduced at trial. Palilonis v. 

State, 970 N.E.2d 713, 730 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. If no such 

objection is made, the issue is waived for appellate review. Id. Nevertheless, 

Brodley claims the admission of this evidence amounted to fundamental error.

[11] The fundamental error doctrine is an exception to the general rule that the 

failure to object at trial constitutes a procedural default precluding consideration 

of the issue on appeal. Id. In order to be fundamental, the error must represent 

a “blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant 

and thereby depriving the defendant of fundamental due process.” Hoglund v. 

State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1239 (Ind. 2012). “Harm is not shown by the fact that 

the defendant was ultimately convicted; rather harm is found when error is so 

prejudicial as to make a fair trial impossible.” Id. Further, this exception is 

available only in egregious circumstances. Palilonis, 970 N.E.2d at 730.

[12] Here, Brodley has failed to allege or show how the admission of the DNA 

evidence made a fair trial impossible and why the circumstances in this case 

were egregious. Further, even if the trial court had erred in admitting the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-613 | February 15, 2017 Page 6 of 7

evidence, any error in the admission of evidence is to be disregarded unless it 

affects the substantial rights of a party. See Hoglund, 962 N.E.2d at 1238. In 

viewing the effect of the evidentiary ruling on a defendant’s substantial rights, 

we look to the probable impact on the fact finder. Id. The improper admission 

is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent 

evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court that there is no substantial 

likelihood that the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction. Id. In 

addition, any error in the admission of evidence is not prejudicial, and it is 

therefore harmless, if the same or similar evidence has been admitted without 

objection or contradiction. Id.

[13] Here, we first observe that there was substantial evidence of Brodley’s guilt 

apart from the DNA evidence. Specifically, Brodley left his home with guns 

after thinking that Holmes and Ahmed had come over to “jump” him. (Tr. 66). 

Brodley was wearing a white tank top. Later that evening, two witnesses saw a 

man in a white tank top shoot and kill Holmes. The gun used to kill Holmes 

was found near Brodley. Further, a picture of a gun with the same serial 

number as the gun used to kill Holmes was found on a phone that also 

contained photographs of Brodley and his infant. In addition, the DNA 

evidence was cumulative of Beech’s and Officer Robinett’s testimony that 

Brodley was wearing a white tank top. Because Brodley’s conviction is 

supported by substantial independent evidence of his guilt and because the 

DNA evidence was cumulative of other evidence properly before the trier of 

fact, we conclude that any error in the admission of this evidence was harmless.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-613 | February 15, 2017 Page 7 of 7

[14] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Mathias, J., concur.