Opinion
23A-CR-137
08-29-2023
Tianna Monique Holmes, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Timothy P. Broden Lafayette, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Tyler G. Banks Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court The Honorable Steven P. Meyer, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D02-2101-MR-1
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Timothy P. Broden Lafayette, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana
Tyler G. Banks Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BRADFORD, JUDGE
Case Summary
[¶1] Tianna Holmes was charged with and convicted of the murder of Deron Keaton, with whom she had been living. The trial court sentenced Holmes to sixty-two years of incarceration, with two years suspended to probation. On appeal, Holmes contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain expert testimony at trial. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] By November of 2020, Holmes had been living with Keaton for a couple of months. On the evening of November 8, 2020, Keaton and Holmes were together in their apartment when two of Keaton's friends, Dakota Smith and Michael Garrison, briefly stopped by the apartment at around 8:00 p.m. to drink a beer and smoke a cigarette with Keaton. When they left, Keaton and Holmes were alone in the apartment.
[¶3] At 9:29 p.m., Holmes called a neighbor and asked for a band-aid, claiming to have "cut her hand trying to kick the door in" after Keaton had allegedly locked her out of the apartment. Tr. Vol. II p. 219. The neighbor had not heard anyone attempting to kick a door in but gave Holmes a band-aid and some peroxide. At 10:19 p.m., Holmes texted the neighbor and stated that Keaton "did me bogus as f[***]." Tr. Vol. II p. 219. In addition to her communication with the neighbor, starting at 10:16 p.m., Holmes contacted several persons indicating that she needed somewhere to go because Keaton had locked her out of their apartment and that he had "also got company that I don't feel comfortable with." Ex. Vol. p. 170. Holmes, however, had not told the neighbor that other persons had been in her and Keaton's apartment or that she had been scared of anyone in the apartment. The neighbor had also not heard or seen other persons entering or coming out of Keaton's apartment that evening.
[¶4] At 1:52 a.m. on November 9, 2020, Holmes called 911. During the call, Holmes told the dispatcher that Keaton was her brother, she and Keaton had "had an altercation earlier," and she had left but had come back to find him "wet, but I don't know if its blood that is coming from him, no it is." Ex. 63 at 00:16-00:17, 00:29-00:37. Holmes also reported that Keaton was "reacting" but also that he did not have a pulse, was bleeding on her, and was "cold a little bit but he's still talking a little bit." Ex. 63 at 1:10-1:20.
[¶5] When paramedic Michael Fleming arrived at 1:59 a.m., Keaton did not have a pulse and exhibited signs suggesting that he had had no circulatory activity "for some time." Tr. Vol. II p. 98. Knowing that "[i]t takes a body, sort of awhile to stop bleeding once all cardiac activity ceases," Fleming observed "obvious signs of death," including "no cardiac electrical activity whatsoever;" fixed, dilated, and fully enlarged pupils that were non-reactive to light; stiffness in the jaw and fingers; and "no active bleeding from any of the wounds." Tr. Vol. II p. 98. Fleming also noted that rigor mortis had begun to set in, which indicated that Keaton had "been dead at least probably [an] hour to two hours." Tr. Vol. II p. 98.
[¶6] Subsequent examination of Keaton's body revealed that he had been stabbed seven times in the chest, one time in the abdomen, and one time in the back. A "silver knife" with "human blood" on it was recovered from near Keaton's body. Ex. Vol. p. 195. DNA testing excluded Smith, Garrison, and a third individual named William Glosson as contributors to the DNA. However, DNA testing showed "very strong support for the inclusion of" both Holmes and Keaton as contributors to the DNA. Ex. Vol. p. 195. Blood was found on the bedroom wall, which DNA testing provided "very strong support for the inclusion of" Holmes as the contributor to the DNA. Ex. Vol. p. 196. Blood was also found on the hallway wall, which DNA testing provided "very strong support for the inclusion of" Keaton as the contributor to the DNA. Ex. Vol. p. 197. Blood was also found on a cloth rag and two band-aids recovered from the apartment, with DNA testing providing "strong support for the inclusion of" Holmes and "very strong support for the inclusion of" Keaton as contributors to the DNA on the rag and "very strong support for the inclusion of" both Holmes and Keaton on the band-aids. Ex. Vol. p. 197.
At some point in 2020, Glosson had stayed at Keaton's apartment for "like a week or two," sleeping on his couch. Tr. Vol. II p. 189. Glosson had moved out prior to November.
[¶7] Holmes was subsequently interviewed by police. After being informed of her Miranda rights, Holmes told officers that four adults with two or three children and a dog had come over to the apartment during the late afternoon or early evening hours on November 8, 2020, and had eaten food that she had prepared and had drunk alcohol that she had bought. Holmes claimed that the persons had angered her, so she had left the apartment and had gone to a nearby park around 9:00 p.m. Holmes further claimed that when she had returned, she had observed the persons "rushing out" of the apartment. Ex. 65 at 4:11:404:11:41. She claimed to have entered the apartment through an unlocked door to check on Keaton, finding him to be what she had believed to be "passed out drunk." Ex. 65 at 4:13:51-4:13:54. Later, she had checked on Keaton again, kicking him, and had discovered the fatal stab wounds. Holmes did not identify any of the individuals who she claimed had been in the apartment.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
[¶8] On January 12, 2021, the State charged Holmes with murder. Holmes waived her right to a jury trial and the case proceeded to a bench trial. Prior to the start of trial, Holmes had moved to exclude the trial testimony of Michael Betzold, a systems engineer who had worked in the pacemaker division of Medtronic, i.e., the company that had manufactured Keaton's pacemaker, for thirty-seven years. The trial court had determined that Betzold "had the required specialized knowledge, skill, and experience to render an opinion under [Evidence Rule] 702(a)." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 41. The trial court had further determined that Betzold "had the appropriate technical background to understand and read the data [from the pacemaker] and to apply it to the appropriate timeframe. Therefore, the testimony is admissible as technical and specialized knowledge under [Evidence Rule] 702(a)." Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 41-42.
[¶9] Betzold testified that Keaton's pacemaker had recorded episodes of arrhythmia on November 8, 2020, during which Keaton's "heart rate was meandering at about 150 beats per minute." Tr. Vol. II p. 24. Betzold further testified that the last episode that had been recorded ended at 10:07 p.m., and that he knew "for certain" that Keaton's heart had been beating prior to this time but that "[a]fter that, there's no more record of heart beating." Tr. Vol. II p. 26. Based on the evidence recovered from Keaton's pacemaker, Betzold determined that Keaton's time of death had been 10:07 p.m.
[¶10] The trial court found Holmes guilty as charged. In finding Holmes guilty, the trial court found the fact that only Holmes's and Keaton's DNA had been found on the murder weapon, a knife with a silver handle which had been stored in a box in a lower kitchen cabinet, suggesting that only Holmes and Keaton, the residents of the apartment, would have known it was there to be "the most compelling evidence" of guilt. Tr. Vol. III p. 42. The trial court also noted the "fresh cut mark" on Holmes's finger, which indicated that she "had to have come into contact with a sharp instrument that night" and she claimed to have suffered while "trying to kick in the door" despite there being no evidence of damage to the door; the fact that Holmes's conflicting statements about the night in question were "simply not credible;" the battery and SIM card for Keaton's phone were found in Holmes's purse; and the 911 call, wherein Holmes claimed that Keaton was talking and responsive but Keaton's body "was cold and lifeless" but was in the beginning "stages of rigor mortis" when emergency personnel had arrived shortly after the call. Tr. Vol. III pp. 43, 44. With respect to the time-of-death testimony, the trial court found that "[i]rregardless [sic] of the pacemaker information, there's other evidence to show the time of death that occurred at least two or three hours before she made the 9-1-1 call." Tr. Vol. III p. 44. The trial court subsequently sentenced Holmes to sixty-two years of incarceration, with two years suspended to probation.
Discussion and Decision
[¶11] Holmes challenges her conviction on appeal, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony, specifically Betzold's testimony regarding Keaton's pacemaker data. Evidence Rule 702, which sets forth the parameters for the admissibility of expert testimony, provides:
(a) A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.
(b) Expert scientific testimony is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the expert testimony rests upon reliable scientific principles.
[¶12] In reviewing the admissibility of expert testimony, the Indiana Supreme Court has held that
[t]wo requirements must be met in order for a witness to qualify as an expert: (1) the subject matter is distinctly related to some scientific field, business or profession beyond the knowledge of
the average lay person; and (2) the witness is shown to have sufficient skill, knowledge or experience in that area so that the opinion will aid the trier of fact.Bacher v. State, 686 N.E.2d 791, 800 (Ind. 1997). "Absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, a reviewing court will not disturb a trial court's determination as to the competency of a witness to testify as an expert." Id. "An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it." Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1045 (Ind. 2011).
[¶13] Holmes does not challenge the trial court's determination that Betzold had the knowledge and expertise to qualify as an expert witness. Rather, in challenging the admissibility of Betzold's testimony, Holmes asserts that Betzold's testimony regarding Keaton's time of death "raised serious questions as to the veracity of Holmes'[s] statements in her 9-1-1 call wherein she related that she had been interacting with Keaton shortly before making the call at 1:52 a.m. on November 9, 2020." Appellee's Br. pp. 9-10. The mere fact that Betzold's testimony discounted Holmes's self-serving statements, which the trial court had not found to be credible, does not render his testimony inadmissible under Evidence Rule 702.
[¶14] Holmes also asserts that Betzold's conclusions regarding the time of Keaton's death "were subjective and unsupported." Appellant's Br. p. 10. The record demonstrates otherwise, however, as Betzold testified at length to the scientific formula he had used to determine Keaton's time of death and that he had had a colleague check the accuracy of his findings. Furthermore, to the extent that Holmes cites to Betzold's acknowledgment that Keaton's pacemaker had recorded prior episodes of arrhythmia on October 18, 2020 and November 5, 2020, in support of her claim that his testimony was subjective and unsupported, Holmes fails to explain how Betzold's acknowledgement of the prior episodes of arrhythmia has any bearing on his opinion regarding Keaton's time of death on November 8, 2020. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Betzold's testimony.
[¶15] In any event, even if it had been error to admit Betzold's testimony, errors in the admission of evidence "are to be disregarded as harmless unless they affect the substantial rights of a party." Mathis v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1275, 1280 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007). "In determining whether an evidentiary ruling has affected a defendant's substantial rights, we assess the probable impact of the evidence on the factfinder." Id. Upon review, we conclude that the challenged evidence cannot be said to have significantly impacted the factfinder, i.e., the trial court.
[¶16] Again, in finding Holmes guilty, the trial court stated that it had found the DNA evidence recovered from the murder weapon, which again belonged only to Holmes and Keaton, to be the most compelling evidence of guilt. The trial court also noted the following additional evidence: prior to its use, the murder weapon had been stored in a location where only Holmes and Keaton were likely to have known where it was; Holmes had sustained an injury to her hand that was consistent with her having handled a sharp object; Holmes's version of events was not credible; and the responding paramedic testified that Keaton could not have been responsive at the time of Holmes's 911 call because rigor mortis had begun to set in by the time emergency personnel arrived shortly after receiving the call. Furthermore, with regard to Betzold's opinion regarding Keaton's time of death, the trial court specifically found the evidence to be cumulative of other evidence relating to time of death, particularly the paramedic's testimony. Thus, in light of the overwhelming evidence of Holmes's guilt, any potential error the trial court may have made in admitting Betzold's testimony can only be considered harmless. See Caldwell v. State, 43 N.E.3d 258, 267 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015) (providing that evidence of subsequent acts of defendant was harmless given the DNA evidence connecting the defendant to the crime), trans. denied; Mathis, 859 N.E.2d at 1280 (alleged error in admission of evidence was harmless when the evidence was cumulative of other admissible evidence); Finney v. Sate, 786 N.E.2d 764, 768 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (providing that an erroneously admitted statement may be deemed harmless if the State has presented other overwhelming evidence of guilt).
[¶17] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Riley, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.