Treadwell v. State
| Docket Number | 22A-CR-1857 |
| Decision Date | 24 July 2023 |
| Parties | Joshua Andrew Treadwell, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Madison Circuit Court The Honorable Andrew Hopper Judge Trial Court Cause No. 48C03-2001-MR-2495
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT DAVID W. STONE IV ANDERSON, INDIANA
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE THEODORE E. ROKITA ATTORNEY GENERAL IAN MCLEAN SUPERVISING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL INDIANAPOLIS INDIANA
[¶1] Joshua Andrew Treadwell appeals his conviction and sentence for murder and a firearm enhancement. We affirm.
[¶2] On October 25, 2020, Treadwell went to a gas station in Anderson with his girlfriend, Brooklyn Parnell, and a friend, Taylor Hubble. Arneshia Fuller was also at the gas station. Fuller and Parnell had recently been in a fight in which Parnell aimed a gun at Fuller. Upon seeing each other, Fuller and Parnell began to argue. Eventually, Parnell drove away with Treadwell and Hubble, and Fuller followed them in her own car.
[¶3] Realizing Fuller was following them, Parnell stopped at the home of a friend, Monyae Allen. Parnell and Fuller both parked in front of Allen's home. Hubble went inside Allen's home, where several other guests were congregated. Fuller got out of her car and began yelling at Parnell, attempting to get her to come out of the car and fight. Parnell refused to exit her car but continued to engage Fuller verbally. Allen and another friend, Maurijah May, stayed in the front yard monitoring Parnell and Fuller. Treadwell went back and forth between the cars and the home, attempting to get both Parnell and Hubble to leave.
[¶4] Fuller and Parnell argued outside Allen's home for several minutes. During this time, Fuller primarily focused on Parnell but occasionally argued with Treadwell, telling him he was a "b*tch." Tr. Vol. IX p. 66. She also spit at him and "pushed" at his face. Tr. Vol. VIII p. 145. At one point, Fuller told Treadwell "if I had my gun, I would shoot you." Id. Eventually, Treadwell walked over to Parnell's car, appeared to retrieve something, and then walked over to where Fuller was standing by her own car. He pulled out a gun and shot her once in the chest. Treadwell and Parnell then fled the scene.
[¶5] Fuller was transported to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead. She had been shot once with a hollow-point bullet. No gun was found on Fuller's person or in her car.
[¶6] At the scene, Detective Norman Rayford with the Anderson Police Department interviewed Allen, May, Hubble, and the other guests. All claimed not to have seen anything. However, the next day during formal interviews with police, Allen and May identified Treadwell as the shooter, and the other guests told police that Treadwell, Parnell, and Fuller were arguing right before the shooting. All denied seeing Fuller with any weapon.
[¶7] The State charged Treadwell with murder and a firearm enhancement.[1] A jury trial was held in March 2022. At trial, Treadwell testified that Fuller threatened to kill him and Parnell, told him she had a gun and would shoot him, and that he shot her only after she pointed a handgun at him.
[¶8] After much deliberation, the jury could not come to a unanimous verdict, and the court declared a mistrial. A second trial commenced in June and was also declared a mistrial after a potential juror made a threatening gesture to the court during voir dire.
[¶9] A third trial was held later that month. Allen and May both testified that they were in the yard when the two cars pulled up, that Fuller argued with Parnell and Treadwell for several minutes, and that Treadwell then walked up to Fuller and shot her once. Allen's other guests all testified that they were in the house when they heard a shot. All these witnesses admitted they had lied to law enforcement at the scene. Detective Rayford also testified that he spoke with the witnesses at the scene, "could tell they [were] not being truthful," and arranged for them to come to the police station for formal interviews, during which they disclosed more information. Tr. Vol. X p. 222.
[¶10] Instead of Treadwell testifying, he and the State agreed that his testimony from the March 2022 trial would be read into evidence. Defense counsel and the State worked together to redact parts of the testimony that referenced the trial in order to keep the jury from knowing Treadwell had previously been tried for this offense. The redacted testimony was then read into evidence, with defense counsel, the prosecutor, and the trial court reading their earlier statements and Detective Rayford reading Treadwell's.
[¶11] The jury found Treadwell guilty of murder and that he used a firearm in the commission of the offense. At sentencing, the court found the following aggravators: (1) Treadwell's criminal history, consisting of Class D felony assisting a criminal, Level 3 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury, and misdemeanor possession of marijuana, (2) he has twice violated probation and was on community supervision when he committed the offense, and (3) he shot Fuller "nearly at pointblank range . . . with a load in [his] weapon that was designed to inflict maximum damage." Tr. Vol. XII p. 32. The court found no mitigators. The court sentenced Treadwell to sixty years for murder, enhanced by fifteen years for the use of a firearm, for an aggregate term of seventy-five years.
[¶12] Treadwell now appeals.
[¶13] Treadwell challenges the trial court's admission of Detective Rayford's testimony that other witnesses, namely Allen and her guests, initially lied to law enforcement. Treadwell argues this violated Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b), which provides in part, "Witnesses may not testify to opinions concerning . . . whether a witness has testified truthfully."
[¶14] But Treadwell did not object to this testimony at trial. Failure to object to the admission of evidence at trial "normally results in waiver and precludes appellate review unless its admission constitutes fundamental error." Konopasek v. State, 946 N.E.2d 23, 27 (Ind. 2011). "Fundamental error is an extremely narrow exception to the waiver rule where the defendant faces the heavy burden of showing that the alleged errors are so prejudicial to the defendant's rights as to make a fair trial impossible." Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 668 (Ind. 2014), reh'g denied. To establish fundamental error, the defendant must show that, under the circumstances, the trial court erred in not sua sponte raising the issue because the alleged error constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process and presented an undeniable and substantial potential for harm. Id.
[¶15] We first note that Rule 704(b) "prohibits a witness from testifying about whether a witness has testified truthfully." Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 680 (Ind. 2013) (citation omitted). Here, Detective Rayford's testimony involved the truthfulness of the witnesses' out-of-court statements to him, not their testimony. But even assuming the admission of his testimony was an error, we cannot say it harmed Treadwell, let alone was fundamental. Detective Rayford testified that he believed the witnesses lied to him at the scene when they denied knowing anything about the shooting. Each of those witnesses also testified and admitted they had initially lied for various reasons, namely, not wanting to be involved and not trusting law enforcement. Where erroneously admitted evidence is cumulative of other testimony, its admission is harmless. See Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1240 (Ind. 2012) ().
[¶16] The admission of Detective Rayford's testimony did not amount to reversible error.[2]
[¶17] Treadwell next claims the State produced insufficient evidence to negate his claim of self-defense. If a claim of self-defense is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State has the burden of negating the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800-01 (Ind. 2002). "The State may meet this burden by rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief." Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind. 1999). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the State's evidence in this regard, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 801. We will reverse "only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. In other words, a trier of fact's decision on a claim of self-defense is generally entitled to considerable deference on appeal. Taylor v. State, 710 N.E.2d 921, 924 (Ind. 1999).
[¶18] A claim of self-defense requires that the defendant "(1) was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence and (3) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm." Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800. The State argues the defendant did not have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, and we agree. At trial, Treadwell testified that he was in fear of his life because Fuller...
To continue reading
Request your trial