Larry Jo Taylor, Jr. v. State of Indiana ( 2023 )

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