Jody Michael Brooks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 40A04-1512-CR-2373

Background

In Oct. 2014 Jody Brooks and Jovannie Mays found Richard Smith passed out in an apartment hallway; Brooks and Mays dragged Smith outside and he was later found dead with over fifty wounds; autopsy identified a lethal tear to the aorta as the immediate cause of death.
Brooks and Mays then fled; they stole two trucks nearby and abandoned/ wrecked them; law enforcement located Brooks and Mays in Corydon; Brooks’s steel-toed boot contained Smith’s DNA.
The State charged Brooks with murder, robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, and two counts of auto theft. After a first trial resulted in convictions on the auto-theft counts but a mistrial on murder and robbery, a second trial convicted Brooks of murder and robbery; the trial court imposed an aggregate 62-year sentence.
On appeal Brooks argued (1) trial court committed fundamental error (mentioning the first trial, admitting evidence about the vehicle thefts, and allowing probation officer testimony), (2) trial court abused discretion in admitting/excluding evidence (hearsay/excited utterance and Miranda/ custodial-interrogation issues), (3) sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B), and (4) the court erred by not advising him of earliest/latest release dates.
The court held the reference to the first trial was an inadvertent, single remark and not fundamental error; evidence of the truck thefts was intrinsic to the flight and therefore admissible under Evid. R. 404(b); probation officer testimony recounting Brooks’s voluntary statements was admissible and not a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting Brooks’s cumulative-error, evidentiary, Miranda, and sentencing-appropriateness claims; any failure to state precise release dates was harmless (following Henriquez).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Brooks)	Held
Whether trial court’s brief mention of the first trial deprived Brooks of a fair trial (fundamental error)	Single inadvertent reference did not prejudice the jury; no sua sponte action required	The court’s remark referenced the prior trial and violated in limine order, creating prejudice and fundamental error	No fundamental error; single passing reference was harmless and did not make a fair trial impossible
Whether evidence of two stolen trucks was admissible	Truck thefts were intrinsic to the murder (completed the story of flight) and probative of consciousness of guilt; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice	Evidence was prior-bad-acts under Evid. R. 404(b) and unduly prejudicial under Evid. R. 403	Admissible as intrinsic evidence; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice
Whether probation officer’s testimony recounting Brooks’s statements was admissible / Miranda issue	Statements were voluntary, not the product of custodial interrogation; officer was not conducting a PSI interview and Brooks sought her out	Statements were custodial or for a PSI and should have required Miranda warnings; testimony was prejudicial	Admissible: statements were volunteered, not the result of interrogation; Miranda not required; testimony not unfairly prejudicial
Whether sentence (aggregate 62 years) was inappropriate under App. R. 7(B)	Sentence lawful and appropriate given brutal, unprovoked nature of murder and Brooks’s poor character and recidivism risk	60+ years for murder excessive	Affirmed: sentence not inappropriate in light of offense severity and offender’s character

Key Cases Cited

Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748 (Ind. 2002) (defines narrow standard for fundamental error)
Boesch v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1276 (Ind. 2002) (appellate review of alleged trial errors in context of entire record)
Lee v. State, 689 N.E.2d 435 (Ind. 1997) (instruction that uncharged acts intrinsic to charged offense are admissible)
Kyle v. State, 54 N.E.3d 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (intrinsic evidence and Evid. R. 404(b) analysis)
Myers v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1069 (Ind. 2015) (flight as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt)
Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (fundamental-error standard allows review of waived evidentiary objections only in extreme cases)
Pasco v. State, 563 N.E.2d 587 (Ind. 1990) (voluntariness test for admission of statements)
Henriquez v. State, 58 N.E.3d 942 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (treatment of statutory duty to advise defendants of earliest/maximum possible release dates and harmlessness)