Keri Brewer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A04-1604-CR-785
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- Victim Patrick Martin displayed $10,000 and sold marijuana; on May 19, 2014 he was at Angela Kosarue’s house when Mark Tyson (with a shotgun) and Keri Brewer (with a box cutter) arrived and confronted occupants.
- Tyson demanded drugs/money, pointed the shotgun at occupants and then shot Martin; Tyson and Brewer fled.
- Witnesses (Thomas, Kosarue, and two children) identified Tyson as the shooter; Thomas identified Brewer as the man with the box cutter.
- Investigators connected Martin to Brewer and Tyson via cell phone and Facebook records; photo arrays led witnesses to identify the defendants.
- Brewer was convicted by a jury of felony murder and sentenced to 60 years; he appealed arguing (1) improper admission of testimony that he and Tyson had purchased marijuana from Martin previously and (2) improper testimony about Martin’s cell phone number.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of testimony that Brewer and Tyson previously bought marijuana from Martin (404(b) and 403) | Evidence was admissible to show motive and identity, and thus relevant | Brewer: prior-act testimony was improper character evidence under Evid. R. 404(b) and unduly prejudicial under Evid. R. 403 | Admission was proper: testimony was relevant to identity and motive; not fundamental error nor unduly prejudicial |
| Admission of Martin’s cell phone number through multiple witnesses | Cell-phone testimony linked Martin to records; State relied on mother’s testimony for number | Brewer: witnesses lacked personal knowledge; prosecutor improperly refreshed witnesses and acted as witness; hearsay concerns | No fundamental error: Martin’s mother had already testified to the number; other testimony was cumulative and any error was not fundamental |
Key Cases Cited
- Wrencher v. State, 635 N.E.2d 1095 (Ind. 1994) (prior contacts admissible to show victim’s familiarity with defendant and possible motive)
- Byers v. State, 709 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. 1999) (evidence of prior arrest admissible to explain and corroborate identification)
- Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2006) (defining narrow scope of fundamental-error exception)
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (fundamental error standard requires blatant violation denying due process)
- Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. 2010) (failure to object at trial waives issue absent fundamental error)
- Wilkes v. State, 7 N.E.3d 402 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (admission of cumulative testimony does not constitute fundamental error)