Court Opinion

ID: 9897231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:09:00.331834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:40.975585
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                        Nov 09 2023, 8:58 am

                                                                             CLERK
                                                                         Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                            Court of Appeals
                                                                              and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. O’Connor                                       Theodore E. Rokita
O’Connor & Auersch                                        Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
                                                          Megan M. Smith
                                                          Deputy Attorney General
                                                          Indianapolis, Indiana

                                           IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Larry Jo Taylor, Jr.,                                     November 9, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                      Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                          22A-CR-2615
        v.                                                Appeal from the Marion Superior
                                                          Court
State of Indiana,                                         The Honorable Jeffrey L. Marchal,
Appellee-Plaintiff.                                       Judge
                                                          The Honorable Grant W.
                                                          Hawkins, Judge Pro Tempore
                                                          Trial Court Cause No.
                                                          49D31-1511-MR-41732

                                  Opinion by Judge Tavitas
                                Judges Pyle and Foley concur.

Tavitas, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2615 | November 9, 2023                             Page 1 of 9
      Case Summary
[1]   Larry Taylor appeals his convictions for murder, a felony; three counts of

      burglary, Level 4 felonies; three counts of theft, Level 6 felonies; criminal

      confinement, a Level 3 felony; auto theft, a Level 6 felony; and carrying a

      handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor. On appeal, Taylor

      contends that his statements to law enforcement regarding his cell phone and

      cell phone number were inadmissible. As the statements were never admitted

      at trial, we find no error. Accordingly, we affirm.

      Issue
[2]   Taylor raises one issue, which we restate as whether Taylor’s statements to law

      enforcement regarding his cell phone and cell phone number were inadmissible.

      Facts
[3]   In the early morning hours of November 10, 2015, Taylor was at an apartment

      in Indianapolis with Diano Gordon and Jalen Watson. The three men left the

      apartment to commit a burglary. Taylor was armed with a .38 caliber revolver.

[4]   The men first burglarized the apartment of Jacola Searsbrook, where they stole

      several items, including a four-door silver Chrysler Sebring. Searsbrook and her

      three daughters were asleep in the apartment at the time. After noticing a

      security camera inside the house, Taylor “wanted to kill everybody,” but the

      others convinced him not to do so. Tr. Vol. VIII p. 19.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2615 | November 9, 2023       Page 2 of 9
[5]   The men drove the Sebring to a housing addition where they burglarized the

      home of Alison Becker, who was not at home during the burglary. They stole

      several items, including a pink sweater. As the men were loading the stolen

      items into the Sebring, Taylor observed David Blackburn, who lived across the

      street from Becker, leave his residence shortly after 6:00 a.m. Blackburn was

      going to the gym, and his pregnant wife, Amanda, and their toddler son were

      still sleeping.

[6]   Taylor, Gordon, and Watson entered the Blackburn residence through the front

      door and began rummaging through the house, where they discovered Amanda

      and her son. The men ordered Amanda to go to an ATM with them, but she

      refused. Gordon and Watson then took Amanda’s debit card to a bank while

      Taylor stayed with Amanda. The first ATM transaction was denied. Taylor

      then called Gordon and Watson and was “yelling [ ] because he felt [they were]

      gone for too long.” Id. at 101. Gordon and Watson obtained the correct code

      or zip code for the account from Taylor. At a different ATM, Watson wrapped

      Becker’s pink sweater around his face and withdrew $400 from Amanda’s bank

      account.

[7]   While Gordon and Watson were gone, Taylor attempted to forcibly have

      sexual intercourse with Amanda. Amanda fought with Taylor, and Taylor shot

      her in the arm, back, and back of her head. Taylor then demanded that Gordon

      and Watson pick him up. At approximately 7:20 a.m., Watson and Gordon

      returned and saw Taylor walking down the street near the Blackburn residence,

      and they picked Taylor up. Taylor told Watson and Gordon that he “smoked”

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2615 | November 9, 2023    Page 3 of 9
       Amanda, meaning that he “killed her.” Id. at 104. Taylor said that he

       “watched [Amanda] bleed out.” Id. at 105.

[8]    When David arrived home at approximately 8:00 a.m., he discovered Amanda

       nude and lying face down in the living room. David called 911, but Amanda

       later died of the gunshot wound to her head. The bullet was likely shot from a

       .38 Special revolver.

[9]    Detective Thomas Lehn was assigned to investigate the Blackburn shooting and

       the nearby Becker burglary. Detective Lehn became aware of a Chase banking

       alert on Amanda’s phone. Officers then obtained photographs of someone

       driving a silver Chrysler attempting to withdraw money from Amanda’s bank

       account at an ATM at approximately 6:36 a.m. on the morning of her murder.

       Officers also obtained photographs of someone with a pink sweater wrapped

       around his face and driving a silver Chrysler withdrawing money from

       Amanda’s bank account at a different ATM at approximately 6:53 a.m.

[10]   Law enforcement obtained surveillance video from several neighbors showing a

       light-colored Chrysler Sebring in the neighborhood on the morning of the

       shooting. Detective Lehn then learned that a light-colored Chrysler Sebring

       was stolen in the Searsbrook burglary. The Sebring was located parked along

       the side of a road. Inside the Sebring, officers discovered Becker’s pink sweater

       and an ATM receipt from Amanda’s bank account. On November 17, 2015,

       DNA on the pink sweater was matched to Watson, and the detectives began to

       investigate Watson’s background and associates. Detective Lehn learned that

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2615 | November 9, 2023     Page 4 of 9
       Gordon was an associate of Watson and discovered cell phone numbers for

       both men. Officers obtained a search warrant for historical data on both phone

       numbers. Officers learned that another phone number ending in 7125 (“7125

       Phone”) contacted Watson’s and Gordon’s phone numbers during the

       burglaries and that the same phone was present in the area of the burglaries.

       Although Watson’s phone was moving at 6:39 a.m., the 7125 Phone stayed

       near the Blackburn residence. Officers then connected Taylor to the 7125

       Phone number through prior police reports and an online prostitution

       advertisement.

[11]   On November 19, 2015, officers tracked the 7125 Phone to an address on South

       Meridian Street, which belonged to Taylor’s cousin. The officers located

       Taylor at the residence and seized the 7125 Phone. Detective Lehn then

       interviewed Taylor. Before reading Taylor his Miranda rights, Detective Lehn

       asked Taylor for preliminary identifying information, including his full name,

       date of birth, social security number, address, and cell phone number. After

       being read his Miranda rights, Taylor confirmed that the 7125 Phone belonged

       to him. Taylor was released from custody following his interview.

[12]   On November 22, 2015, law enforcement arrested Taylor, and the State

       charged him with murder, a felony; two counts of felony murder; burglary, a

       Level 1 felony; two counts of burglary, Level 4 felonies; three counts of theft,

       Level 6 felonies; robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 2 felony;

       criminal confinement, a Level 3 felony; auto theft, a Level 6 felony, and

       carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2615 | November 9, 2023        Page 5 of 9
[13]   Taylor filed a motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement regarding

       his cell phone and cell phone number, which were given prior to him receiving

       his Miranda advisement. At a hearing on the motion, counsel indicated that

       deposition testimony regarding the seizure of Taylor’s phone was conflicting.

       According to Sergeant Mark Hess, when the officers found Taylor at his

       cousin’s residence, Sergeant Hess asked Taylor if he wanted to take anything

       with him, and Taylor pointed to the phone. Detective Daniel Kepler, however,

       indicated that an officer asked Taylor if the phone belonged to him, and Taylor

       said that it did. Taylor sought to suppress this pre-Miranda advisement

       statement regarding ownership of the phone. Additionally, Taylor sought to

       suppress his pre-Miranda advisement answer to Detective Lehn’s preliminary

       identifying information question regarding Taylor’s cell phone number. The

       trial court denied Taylor’s motion.

[14]   The trial court granted mistrials in two jury trials, and Taylor then waived his

       right to a jury trial. In September 2022, the trial court held a bench trial.

       Watson and Gordon testified at the trial regarding Taylor’s actions. At the

       trial, the State did not seek to admit Taylor’s statements regarding his phone

       when he was found at his cousin’s house. Additionally, Detective Lehn

       testified that, before advising Taylor of his Miranda rights, he asked Taylor for

       certain preliminary identifying information. Detective Lehn later testified that,

       after Taylor was read his Miranda rights, Taylor confirmed that the 7125 Phone

       belonged to him. Taylor did not object to the admission of the 7125 Phone or

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2615 | November 9, 2023        Page 6 of 9
       its contents. The State also did not seek to admit Taylor’s responses to the

       preliminary identifying information questions.

[15]   The trial court found Taylor guilty of murder, a felony; one count of felony

       murder; burglary, a Level 1 felony; two counts of burglary, Level 4 felonies;

       three counts of theft, Level 6 felonies; criminal confinement, a Level 3 felony;

       auto theft, a Level 6 felony; and carrying a handgun without a license, a Class

       A misdemeanor. The trial court later vacated the felony murder guilty verdict

       and reduced the Level 1 felony burglary to a Level 4 felony. The trial court

       sentenced Taylor to an aggregate sentence of eighty-six years in the Department

       of Correction. Taylor now appeals.

       Discussion and Decision
[16]   On appeal, Taylor challenges the denial of his motion to suppress regarding his

       pre-Miranda advisement statements. Because Taylor’s case proceeded to trial,

       “his appeal is better framed as a request to review the trial court’s ruling on its

       admissibility.” Guilmette v. State, 14 N.E.3d 38, 40 (Ind. 2014) (citing Clark v.

       State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 259 (Ind. 2013) (“Direct review of the denial of a motion

       to suppress is only proper when the defendant files an interlocutory appeal.”)).

       The trial court has broad discretion to rule on the admissibility of evidence. Id.

       We review a trial court’s ruling on the admission of evidence “for abuse of that

       discretion and reverse only when admission is clearly against the logic and

       effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party’s substantial

       rights.” Id. When an appellant’s challenge to such a ruling raises a

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2615 | November 9, 2023        Page 7 of 9
       constitutional issue, it is “question of law, and we consider that question de

       novo.” Id. at 40-41.

[17]   Taylor’s arguments concern his statements regarding his phone when he was

       located at his cousin’s residence and his pre-Miranda advisement statement to

       Detective Lehn regarding his phone number. In general, “routine

       administrative questions such as name, address, height, and weight, regardless

       whether considered within a ‘routine booking exception’ or whether deemed

       ‘not testimonial,’ are removed from the requirements of Miranda.” Loving v.

       State, 647 N.E.2d 1123, 1126 (Ind. 1995) (quoting Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496

       U.S. 582, 601-02, 110 S. Ct. 2638, 2650 (1990)); see also Matheny v. State, 983

       N.E.2d 672, 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (holding that officer’s questions regarding

       the defendant’s address were routine identification questions even though the

       defendant’s answer was ultimately incriminating), aff’d on rehearing, 987 N.E.2d

       1169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

[18]   The State points out that the trial court could not have abused its discretion

       because Taylor’s statements at issue were not admitted into evidence at trial.

       We agree with the State. The State did not admit evidence that Taylor

       identified the phone as his when he was located at his cousin’s residence.

       Rather, the State only admitted evidence that the 7125 Phone was tracked to

       the residence and that it was seized by law enforcement. Further, at trial,

       Detective Lehn testified that, before advising Taylor of his Miranda rights,

       Detective Lehn asked Taylor for preliminary identifying information, including

       his cell phone number. The State, however, did not seek to admit Taylor’s

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2615 | November 9, 2023      Page 8 of 9
       response to the question into evidence. The trial court could not have abused

       its discretion because Taylor’s statements were never admitted into evidence. 1

[19]   Moreover, even if Taylor’s statements had been admitted, any error would have

       been harmless. Overwhelming evidence connected the 7125 Phone to Taylor

       and to the three burglaries, and law enforcement was aware of Taylor’s

       connection to the phone number prior to Taylor’s statements. Gordon and

       Watson testified at the trial that Taylor was with them during the three

       burglaries and that Taylor admitted to shooting Amanda. Accordingly, any

       error in the admission of the statements would have been harmless. 2

       Conclusion
[20]   Taylor’s arguments regarding his statements fail because Taylor’s statements

       were not admitted into evidence during the trial. Accordingly, we affirm

       Taylor’s convictions.

[21]   Affirmed.

       Pyle, J., and Foley, J., concur.

       1
         Moreover, when Detective Lehn testified regarding the preliminary identifying information questions,
       Taylor did not object. In fact, Taylor did not renew his motion to suppress until later in Detective Lehn’s
       testimony.
       2
        Taylor also argues that his post-Miranda confirmation of his phone number did not cure the earlier violation
       of his Miranda rights. Taylor seems to contend that his post-Miranda statement should have been suppressed.
       For the reasons already discussed, any error in the admission of Taylor’s post-Miranda confirmation of his
       phone number was also harmless.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2615 | November 9, 2023                                Page 9 of 9