Yoshua Tear Monday, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Yoshua Tear Monday appeals his conviction for murder, a felony,¹ and the finding that he had used a firearm in the commission of the offense.² Monday raises one issue for our review, which we revise and restate as whether the court abused its discretion when it admitted the testimony of two expert witnesses who had opined that Monday was sane at the time of the offense. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2023, Amber Barile-Perry and Henry Robinson lived together in an apartment. They allowed Monday, who was friends with Robinson, to move into their apartment because Monday needed a place to stay. Monday became friends with Bryan Hall, who lived in the apartment directly below, and would frequently visit Hall in his apartment. In July, Monday began to use methamphetamine.

[3] Beginning around October 9, Barile-Perry began to notice changes in Monday's behavior. Monday was “much more withdrawn,” he was “isolating himself,” and he was “talking about speaking to witches[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 147. He became “very paranoid” and started “carrying his handgun around with him unholstered.” Id. Barile-Perry “started to avoid him,” and she and Robinson discussed asking Monday to leave their apartment. Id.

[4] On the morning of October 12, Monday wanted to go outside to smoke a cigarette, and he asked Barile-Perry “if anyone would mess with him if he went downstairs.” Id. at 149. Monday had a gun in his hands, and Barile-Perry told him that “no one [wa]s going to mess with [him]” and to “[p]ut [his] gun back.” Id. Monday was “very worried that he was going to get jumped or attacked,” and he “said that the witches were telling him things were going to get better.” Id. at 149-50.

[5] Later that morning, Barile-Perry and Monday had plans to pick up a rental car. When the time came to leave, Barile-Perry knocked on Monday's door and told him she would meet him by the car. Barile-Perry was able to see “the outline of the gun in his pocket of his hoodie.” Id. at 155. Barile-Perry left the apartment through the front door, and she heard Monday exit through the back door. Barile-Perry got into her car, and she heard “[m]ultiple gunshots” from the direction of Hall's apartment. Id. at 160.

[6] Monday then approached Barile-Perry's car, opened the door, and began to get in. Monday was “very shaken,” and his eyes looked “wide” and “mad.” Id. at 161. Monday had a gun in his hand. When Barile-Perry asked Monday what had happened, Monday responded: “I did what they told me to do. We need to go.” Id. at 162. Barile-Perry informed Monday that she was “not going anywhere” with him, and she exited the car. Id. Monday also exited the car, ran to a dumpster, and dropped his gun inside. Barile-Perry went to Hall's window to check on him, and she saw Hall “sitting in his chair with blood coming out of his mouth and blood on his chest.” Id. at 165. Barile-Perry called 9-1-1.

[7] Meanwhile, Monday ran into a nearby hair salon and went into a back room. Whitney Schelfo, the owner of the hair salon, thought that Monday “didn't seem right,” so she texted her husband and asked him to send their friend Austin Hall, who is a police officer who lived nearby. Id. at 194. Schelfo also texted Austin that she needed his help and asked him to bring his gun. Austin, who was off duty, arrived, identified himself as law enforcement, and held Monday until on-duty officers arrived.³ Monday informed Austin that he had consumed methamphetamine an hour prior.

[8] Officers arrived at Hall's apartment and discovered that he had died as a result of seven gunshot wounds to his head and neck. Officers then secured the scene, and they found Monday's gun in the dumpster and spent casings and bullet fragments in the apartment. Subsequent testing confirmed that the shell casings and bullet fragments had been fired by Monday's gun. Officers arrested Monday and believed that “he was under the influence of methamphetamine.” Tr. Vol. 3 at 144. Monday submitted to a blood draw, which revealed both methamphetamine and THC in his system. The level of methamphetamine in Monday's system was a level where it would be “expect[ed] to see impairment.” Id. at 214.

[9] The State charged Monday with murder, a felony, and alleged that he had used a firearm in the commission of the offense. Thereafter, Monday filed a motion to determine his sanity. The court appointed three experts to evaluate Monday. Dr. James Cates, a clinical psychologist; Dr. Rebecca Mueller, a psychiatrist; and Dr. David Lombard, a clinical psychologist, each conducted two assessments of Monday. Monday reported to the experts that both of his parents had schizophrenia, that he had been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons as a child, that he had been involved in the foster system, and that he had been shot in 2017. The experts were also aware of Monday's drug use.

[10] The court held a multi-day, bifurcated jury trial beginning on November 4, 2024. During the trial, Monday maintained his innocence but also presented a defense of insanity. After both parties had presented their evidence regarding the shooting of Hall, the three appointed experts testified as to their opinions regarding Monday's sanity at the time of the offense. Dr. Lombard testified that he had diagnosed Monday with generalized anxiety disorder, anti-social personality disorder, cannabis use disorder, and methamphetamine use disorder. He then testified that Monday had those mental health conditions on the day of the offense and that Monday had consumed methamphetamine that day. Dr. Lombard further testified that Monday denied having shot Hall but that, based on the way Monday “described his thought patterns for that day,” Monday's “mental capacities were not impaired to the level of not understanding the wrongfulness of shooting somebody.” Tr. Vol. 4 at 43. But Dr. Lombard clarified that, because Monday maintained that he did not commit the crime, Dr. Lombard was not able to offer an opinion as to Monday's sanity “with a reasonable degree of medical certainty[.]” Id.

[11] Dr. Mueller testified that she had diagnosed Monday with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), a panic disorder, cannabis use disorder, and amphetamine use disorder. She further testified that Monday's use of methamphetamine on the day of the offense caused “perceptual disturbance” and that his state of mind on the day of the shooting “was impacted by his voluntary use of illegal drugs.” Id. at 62, 76. And she testified that Monday was “able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the alleged offense” such that he was sane. Id. at 76.

[12] Dr. Cates testified that he had diagnosed Monday with schizophrenia and PTSD. He then testified that Monday exhibited a “psychosis” on the day of the offense that “would have rendered him incapable of determining right from wrong due to a mental disease or defect” and that Monday was insane at the time of the offense. Id. at 89.

[13] At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on the defense of insanity and the definition of mentally ill and that the jury was not bound by an expert's opinions. The court also gave the jury the option of returning a verdict of not guilty, guilty, guilty but mentally ill, or not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury found Monday guilty of murder. Then, following the second phase, the jury found that Monday had used a firearm in the commission of the offense. The court entered judgment of conviction accordingly and sentenced Monday to an aggregate term of sixty-five years in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[14] Monday challenges the court's admission of the expert witnesses’ testimonies during his trial.⁴ As our Supreme Court has stated:

Generally, a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence is accorded “a great deal of deference” on appeal. Tynes v. State, 650 N.E.2d 685, 687 (Ind.1995). “Because the trial court is best able to weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility, we review its rulings on admissibility for abuse of discretion” and only reverse “if a ruling is ‘clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party's substantial rights.’ ” Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 260 (Ind. 2013)).

Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459, 466 (Ind. 2015).

[15] Monday appears to contend that the court abused its discretion when it admitted the testimony of Dr. Mueller because her testimony created a “bright[-]line” rule that the presence of an illegal drug in his system automatically rendered him sane, which he contends is an interpretation that is “too hard.” Appellant's Br. at 23-24. He further contends that the court abused its discretion when it admitted Dr. Lombard's testimony because his decision to avoid making a conclusion on Monday's sanity after Monday denied his involvement in the offense was an approach that was “too soft.” Id. at 38. He argues that Dr. Cates was the only expert who “followed the correct analytical process for evaluating sanity or insanity,” that the testimonies of Dr. Mueller and Dr. Lombard created confusion, and that “the jury was not served well by the confusing and misleading testimony[.]” Id. at 53, 55.

[16] However, Monday has failed to preserve this issue for our review. It is well settled that the failure to make a contemporaneous objection to the admission of evidence at trial results in waiver of the error on appeal. Gibson v. State, 111 N.E.3d 247, 254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. A contemporaneous objection affords the trial court the opportunity to make a final ruling on the matter in the context in which the evidence is introduced. Id. Here, Monday did not object to either Dr. Lombard's or Dr. Mueller's testimonies. As such, he has waived this issue.⁵

Conclusion

[17] Monday has waived the issue of the admissibility of Dr. Mueller's and Dr. Lombard's testimonies for our review.⁶ We therefore affirm his conviction and corresponding enhancement.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.

2.   I.C. § 35-50-2-11.

3.   Austin is Hall's son. When he arrived and detained Monday, Austin was not yet aware that his father had been shot.

4.   We agree with the State that the “precise basis on which [Monday] claims that he was denied a fair trial is unclear.” Appellee's Br. at 15. While Monday does not explicitly argue that the testimonies of the expert witnesses should not have been admitted, that appears to be the crux of his argument.

5.   Other than a brief statement that the “confusion” created by the expert witnesses deprived him “of a fair trial and due process of law,” Monday does not make any argument that the admission of the expert testimonies amounted to fundamental error. Appellant's Br. at 55.

6.   While Monday neither explicitly challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction nor provides a related standard of review, to the extent his argument can be interpreted as asserting that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his insanity defense, that argument must fail. A determination of sanity is a question for the trier of fact, and an appellate court reverses a trial court's judgment only when the evidence is without conflict and leads only to the conclusion that the defendant was insane at the time the crime was committed. Berry v. State, 969 N.E.2d 35, 38 (Ind. 2012). The strongest showing of an evidentiary conflict occurs where the experts disagree as to whether the defendant was insane at the time of the offense. Id. Thus, “if a credible expert opines that a defendant was sane when committing an offense, despite other expert opinions to the contrary, it is reasonable for a trial court to reject a defendant's insanity defense.” Id. at 38-39. Here, while Dr. Cates testified that Monday was insane at the time of the offense, Dr. Mueller testified that he was sane. And, while Dr. Lombard did not give a definitive opinion, he testified that, based on the way Monday “described his thought patterns for that day,” Monday's “mental capacities were not impaired to the level of not understanding the wrongfulness of shooting somebody.” Tr. Vol. 4 at 43. Based on the testimonies of Dr. Mueller and Dr. Lombard, it was reasonable for the fact-finder to reject Monday's insanity defense.

Bailey, Judge.

Judges Brown and Weissmann concur. Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.