Larry A. Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this May 12 2015, 10:37 am
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 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Yvette M. LaPlante Gregory F. Zoeller
Keating & LaPlante, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Evansville, Indiana
George P. Sherman
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Larry A. Jones, May 12, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
82A04-1410-CR-481
v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Superior Court; the Honorable Leslie
C. Shively, Judge;
State of Indiana, 82D01-1105-FA-543
Appellee-Plaintiff.
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1410-CR-481 | May 12, 2015 Page 1 of 5
[1] Larry A. Jones appeals his conviction of Class B felony unlawful possession of
a handgun by a serious violent felon.1
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On May 19, 2011, Shareka Bentley called the police to report Larry Jones, a
convicted felon, possessed a handgun in her home. The next day, police
obtained a search warrant to search her home and found a handgun concealed
in a Crown Royal bag under the mattress of the bed Bentley and Jones shared.
Jones was arrested, and, in a post-arrest interview, admitted he was a felon and
he had been in possession of the handgun, though he claimed he just moved it
around the house.
[4] Based thereon, the State charged Jones with Class B felony unlawful possession
of a firearm by a serious violent felon.2 Prior to trial, Jones dismissed two
different attorneys, and then he elected to proceed pro se at his trial. At trial,
Jones stipulated he was prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to Ind.
Code § 35-47-4-5. The State presented for admission into evidence a videotape
1
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5 (2006).
2
Based on separate evidence, the State also charged Jones with Class A felony dealing in cocaine. The two
charges were bifurcated, and Jones was separately tried and convicted of Class A felony dealing in cocaine on
September 27, 2013. We affirmed that conviction. Jones v. State, 82A04-1312-CR-627 (Ind. Ct. App. July 24,
2014), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1410-CR-481 | May 12, 2015 Page 2 of 5
of Jones’ post-arrest interview. Jones objected, and the trial court overruled his
objections. The jury found Jones guilty as charged.
Discussion and Decision
[5] We typically review allegations of error in the admission of evidence for an
abuse of discretion, which occurs only when the trial court’s ruling is “clearly
against the logic, facts, and circumstances presented.” Kindred v. State, 973
N.E.2d 1245, 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. We consider only the
evidence in favor of the trial court’s ruling, Sallee v. State, 777 N.E.2d 1204,
1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied, and we will not reverse the decision to
admit or exclude evidence if that decision is sustainable on any ground.
Crawford v. State, 770 N.E.2d 775, 780 (Ind. 2002).
[6] Jones argues the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted Jones’
videotaped interview with police wherein he admitted he was “a felon in
possession of a handgun.” (Tr. at 181.) On appeal, Jones argues some of the
officer’s statements in the recording were inadmissible under Indiana Evidence
Rule 704, which states in relevant part:
(a) In General - Not Automatically Objectionable. Testimony in the
form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not
objectionable just because it embraces the ultimate issue.
(b) Exception. Witnesses may not testify to opinions concerning
intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or falsity of
allegations; whether a witness testified truthfully; or legal conclusions.
However, Jones objected on different grounds during trial, and thus his
argument on appeal is waived. See White v. State, 772 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1410-CR-481 | May 12, 2015 Page 3 of 5
2002) (a party “may not object on one ground at trial and raise a different
ground on appeal”).
[7] Waiver notwithstanding, any error in the admission of the videotaped interview
was harmless. “The improper admission of evidence is harmless error when the
reviewing court is satisfied that the conviction is supported by substantial
independent evidence of guilt so that there is no substantial likelihood that the
challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.” Meadows v. State, 785
N.E.2d 1112, 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. Bentley testified she saw
Jones place the handgun under the mattress in the bedroom she shared with
Jones; at trial, Jones stipulated he was prohibited from possessing a firearm
pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5; and Jones’ driver’s license and car keys were
found in the vicinity of the handgun. Therefore, the State presented sufficient
independent evidence of Jones’ guilt, and any error in the admission of the
videotaped interview was harmless. See Bowens v. State, 24 N.E.3d 426, 429
(Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (stipulation it was unlawful for defendant to possession
firearm under Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5 sufficient to prove he was a serious violent
felon and thus guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent
felon); and see Mack v. State, 23 N.E.3d 742, 758 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (Mack
guilty of possession of a firearm despite the fact he did not live in the house
where the handgun was found because his personal effects were found in the
same bedroom as the gun). Accordingly, we affirm Jones’ conviction of Class
B felony unlawful possession of a handgun by a serious violent felon.
[8] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1410-CR-481 | May 12, 2015 Page 4 of 5
Robb, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1410-CR-481 | May 12, 2015 Page 5 of 5