Brooks v. State
| Citation | 173 N.E.3d 1050 (Table) |
| Decision Date | 03 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CR-83 |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
| Parties | Montel Ray BROOKS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Attorney for Appellant: R. Brian Woodward, Appellate Public Defender, Crown Point, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Josiah Swinney, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Montel Ray Brooks ("Brooks") was convicted after a jury trial of murder,1 a felony, and an enhancement for the use of a firearm in the offense.2 He was sentenced to fifty-five years executed, which included a ten-year enhancement for the use of a firearm in the commission of the offense. Brooks appeals and raises the following restated issues for our review:
[2] We affirm.
[3] In the early morning hours of January 5, 2018, Djuan Washington ("Washington") went to the duplex where his friend, Brooks, lived, which was located in Gary, Indiana. Tr. Vol. 4 at 148-50. When he arrived, Brooks let him into the residence, and there were others present, including Mario Brooks ("Mario"), who was Brooks's brother, and Louis Watson ("Watson"), who was a friend of Brooks. Id. at 151. The living room of Brooks's residence contained a red couch with a table and chair on one side of the sofa and a locked door blocked by a white, plastic lawn chair on the other. Tr. Vol. 3 at 26, 172-74; State's Ex. 8. When Washington entered the residence, he smelled "PCP" and knew that Brooks had been smoking PCP because Washington knew Brooks to use PCP. Tr. Vol. 4 at 152-53. Mario was drinking vodka, and he would later testify that he was "drunk" to the extent that it was "possible" that his memory could have been off as to what happened during certain portions of the night. Tr. Vol. 3 at 108, 175. Once there, Washington only smoked marijuana, and he would later testify that marijuana does not cause him memory loss like drinking an excessive amount of alcohol. Tr. Vol. 4 at 167-68.
[4] That night, Watson had a black "AR-looking" assault rifle in his possession, which was later identified as an AR-15, and he intermittently aimed it out of Brooks's window until Brooks loudly told him to sit down and stop. Id. at 154-55. Brooks also loudly told Watson to give him the AR-15, and Watson refused. Id. at 158. The men calmed down and began taking turns playing video games. Id. at 157. Brooks sat toward the end of the couch in a spot closest to the table while Washington sat in a chair near the table. Id. at 158. Watson sat on the other end of the couch, and Mario was sitting in the middle of the couch. Id. at 158-59. At some point, they stopped playing video games against each other, and Brooks stood up from the couch and left the living room. Id. at 157-59. He returned and walked back toward the others from the hallway, carrying an AK-47 that had a wooden stock. Id. at 159, 170. Washington later testified that the AK-47 was "very distinguishable" from Watson's black AR-15 because the guns had different tips and the AK-47 had a different stock. Id. at 159. Brooks fired the AK-47 striking Watson nine times, and the nine spent casings that police would later recover from the scene matched the AK-47. Id. at 61-62, 136, 187. Watson died as a result of these gunshot wounds. Tr. Vol. 2 at 224.
[5] Washington saw Brooks fire the first shot, and then Washington ran outside and away from the residence. Tr. Vol. 4 at 160. When Brooks began shooting, Mario, who had been sitting on the couch next to Watson, dropped to the floor until the shooting stopped. Tr. Vol. 3 at 119, 124. As Washington ran away, he saw Brooks exit the duplex without the AK-47, and Washington feared for his life. Tr. Vol. 4 at 163; State's Ex. 24. Mario exited the duplex last and called 911, and while still on the 911 call, he returned to the residence. Tr. Vol. 3 at 127-31. When the police arrived at the scene, an officer found a cell phone near the exterior of the duplex that was logged into Brooks's Facebook account. Tr. Vol. 4 at 78. Mario told the police that he had touched Watson after the shooting, and his clothing had blood on it, including blood on the back of his tshirt, that would later test as at least one trillion times more likely as originating from Watson than an unknown individual. Tr. Vol. 3 at 133; Tr. Vol. 4 at 103-05, 201. Mario also stated that Watson's blood was on his clothing because he was sitting next to Watson at the time of the shooting. Tr. Vol. 3 at 133.
[6] While speaking to the police at the scene, Mario identified Brooks as the shooter to Detective Jeremy Ogden ("Detective Ogden"), who had been a member of the Lake County Sheriff's Department for twenty-one years. Tr. Vol. 4 at 195, 200. In an interview with police later that day, Mario again identified Brooks as the shooter three times. Id. at 207. He told police that he, Watson, and Brooks had been in the duplex that night, and he would later add that Washington was also present. Id. at 207-08. Additionally, the morning after the shooting, and after his interview with police, Mario told Washington that he had also witnessed Brooks shoot Watson. Id. at 170.
[7] On January 5, 2018, the State charged Brooks with one count of murder. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 22. The State also sought an enhancement to the murder charge for the use of a firearm in the commission of the offense. Id. at 23. A jury trial commenced on November 9, 2020. Id. at 220. At trial, Washington testified that only he, Brooks, Watson, and Mario were present at the duplex the night of the shooting. Tr. Vol. 4 at 151. Mario testified that two unknown individuals were also in the duplex at the time of the shooting and that they exited into the back alleyway "or something," avoiding the camera that was recording the front area outside of Brooks's duplex. Tr. Vol. 3 at 117, 171. Mario also claimed at trial that he did not see the shooter and that, when he spoke to police after the shooting, he was concerned that he would be "in trouble" because someone would be blamed for the murder. Id. at 160, 164. Mario also testified that he was more afraid of being labeled "a snitch in the streets" than being in trouble for lying. Id. at 161-65.
[8] Detective Ogden testified that Mario had told police that he touched Watson's body and had told the dispatcher in the 911 call that he had been inside the duplex and touched Watson's body. Tr. Vol. 4 at 201-02. Detective Ogden also testified that the surveillance video of the outside of the duplex showed an individual passing back and forth from the inside of the duplex, who was identified as Mario, and that there was a red substance on the front exterior door that appeared to be blood. Id. at 202-03. The State then asked Detective Ogden, "in your investigative experience is there an explanation for how this blood could have got [sic] to the exterior of the home?" Id. at 203. Brooks objected, arguing, "[s]peculation." Id. The State responded, Id. The trial court asked the State to repeat the question, and the State again asked Detective Ogden, "Given the information available, what is the best investigative explanation for this blood on the door?" Id. The trial court overruled the objection, and Detective Ogden began, "Mario indicated that he had blood on his hands, and there's also ..." Id. at 203-04. Brooks again objected, arguing that, at the time Detective Ogden first saw the blood on the door, he was not aware that Mario touched Watson's body and did not learn such information until Mario's recorded interview. Id. at 204. Brooks reiterated that he was objecting because "[t]his is all speculative as to whose blood may be on there." Id. The State responded:
Judge, before any officer arrived on the scene, Mario ... indicated that he had gone back in the home and checked ... Watson on a 911 call. It was made available and known to officers that he had gone back in and interacted with ... Watson. Additionally, an investigative role does not cease when they leave the scene, and Detective Ogden has worked this case continuously from when it was filed. His cumulative knowledge of the case only increases and improves as he goes through that process. I'm asking him now for an investigative conclusion based on the culmination of the case, not from an in-the-moment impression.
Id. The trial court again overruled the objection. Id. at 205. The State repeated its question, "what is your best investigative – I'll say explanation ... for why there's blood on the exterior of that door," to which Detective Ogden answered, "[t]ransference of blood by Mario." Id. Detective Ogden also testified that Mario had transferred other instances of blood located on the floor near the front door, reasoning that Mario was the only person who had been in contact with Watson's body. Id. at 205-06. On cross-examination, Detective Ogden agreed with Brooks's attorney that it was possible that anyone could have transferred the blood to the floor in front of the door. Id. at 222. As to both the floor and the door where blood was found, Detective Ogden agreed with Brooks's attorney that he could not definitively state either that Mario had transferred the red substance to the door or that the substance was Watson's blood. Id. at 223-24, 229.
[9] Additionally, during direct examination by the State, Detective Ogden was asked about pursuing additional leads after speaking to Washington and Mario, and the State inquired as to whether the information from those two sent Detective Ogden "down any other roads." Id. at 213. Detective...
To continue reading
Request your trial