Phillip J. Beachey, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Following a jury trial, Phillip J. Beachey was convicted of six counts of child molesting and four counts of sexual misconduct or attempted sexual misconduct with a minor. At trial, the victim testified to Beachey's specific acts of sexual abuse. But before the victim testified, three other witnesses testified more generally that the victim had disclosed the abuse to them. Beachey now appeals his convictions, arguing the witnesses’ testimony constituted “drumbeat repetition” of the victim's allegations. Finding no such error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In March 2004, Jessamyn Eckhart gave birth to Victim 1. Jessamyn's sister, Carrie, and her husband, Beachey, adopted Victim 1, although Jessamyn remained in her life. When Victim 1 was “nine or ten” Beachey began molesting her. Tr. Vol. III p. 160. The sexual abuse continued until she was fourteen. In 2020, Victim 1, now fifteen, disclosed the abuse to Jessamyn. Soon after, law enforcement was notified and conducted an investigation. Victim 1 underwent two forensic interviews and was examined by a sexual assault nurse examiner, Saeromy Kim. During the exam, Victim 1 reported to Nurse Kim that the abuse consisted of “penetration by a penis[,]” “a finger[,]” and “a vibrator,” as well as “oral copulation of genitals” and reported pain and bleeding as a result of these acts. Id. at 32.

[3] The State charged Beachey with three counts of Level 1 felony child molesting, three counts of Level 4 felony child molesting, three counts of Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor, and one count of Level 4 felony attempted sexual misconduct with a minor. A jury trial was held in September 2024.¹ At trial, several witnesses testified, over Beachey's objection, that Victim 1 had disclosed the abuse to them. Jessamyn testified that Victim 1 made “a disclosure to [Jessamyn] about [Beachey] touching [Victim 1.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 87. Nurse Kim testified as to Victim 1's exam, including that Victim 1 reported multiple acts of penetration over a period of years. Nurse Kim's notes from the meeting were also admitted. Finally, Dr. Jayme Culwell, Victim 1's therapist, testified as to her treatment of Victim 1, including that Victim 1 disclosed “sexual abuse.” Tr. Vol. III p. 79. Some of Dr. Culwell's therapy notes were admitted, in which she wrote that Victim 1 reported being “sexually assaulted” by Beachey. Ex. Vol. II p. 55. Lastly, Victim 1 testified in detail about the abuse and described multiple specific incidents that occurred over a period of four to five years.

[4] The jury found Beachey guilty as charged. The court sentenced Beachey to an aggregate 195 years, with 175 years executed and twenty years suspended, ten to probation. Beachey now appeals his convictions.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Beachey appeals his child molestation convictions, arguing the trial court erred by allowing various witnesses to testify about Victim 1's disclosures of Beachey's sexual abuse. “Our standard of reviewing claims of alleged evidentiary error is well settled: the decision to admit or exclude evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reviewed only for an abuse of that discretion.” McMillen v. State, 169 N.E.3d 437, 440-41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). “An abuse occurs only where the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Chambless v. State, 119 N.E.3d 182, 188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. A trial court's evidentiary ruling is presumptively correct, and “a challenger bears the burden on appeal of persuading us that the trial court erred in its exercise of discretion.” Schnitzmeyer v. State, 168 N.E.3d 1041, 1044 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021).

[6] Beachey challenges testimony by Jessamyn, Nurse Kim, and Dr. Culwell in which they relayed Victim 1's allegations of Beachey's sexual abuse. Beachey claims this testimony was inadmissible because it amounted to a “drumbeat repetition” of Victim 1's allegations before she testified. Appellant's Br. p. 11. Beachey's drumbeat repetition claim relies on Modesitt v. State, 578 N.E.2d 649, 652 (Ind. 1991), where our Supreme Court reversed a defendant's child molesting convictions after finding witnesses’ “drumbeat repetition” of the victim's allegations unduly prejudiced the jury.

[7] In Modesitt, three adult witnesses each testified in detail about the defendant's specific acts of molestation, as disclosed to them by the victim. Only after this testimony had been presented did the victim testify. Our Supreme Court later found,

Prior to putting the victim on the stand, the victim's veracity had been, in essence, vouchsafed by permitting the three witnesses to repeat the accusations of the victim. We believe that immediate cross examination is the most effective, and that delayed cross examination is the least effective. Here, three witnesses told the victim's story before the victim herself testified. We hold ․ that we could not say that the drumbeat repetition of the victim's original story prior to calling the victim to testify did not unduly prejudice the jury which convicted Modesitt.

Id. at 651-52.

[8] However, the same “drumbeat repetition” is not present here. Both Jessamyn's and Dr. Culwell's testimony regarding Victim 1's disclosures were very general. Jessamyn testified vaguely that Victim 1 disclosed “touching” while Dr. Culwell's testimony and notes referred generally to “sexual abuse” or “sexual assault.” Tr. Vol. II p. 87; Tr. Vol. III p. 79; Ex. Vol. II p. 55. Neither gave a detailed description of the touching or abuse. See Kress v. State, 133 N.E.3d 742, 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (testimony of other witnesses was not drumbeat repetition in part because victim's testimony was “specific” and “descriptive” while other witnesses’ testimony was “general”), trans. denied. And while Nurse Kim's testimony and notes were more specific, they were far from a repetition of Victim 1's “original story.” Nurse Kim's testimony and notes merely listed what sex acts were performed and what body areas were affected, while Victim 1's testimony graphically described Beachey's actions over a period of years. And unlike in Modesitt, all of the witnesses’ testimony was consistent with, but did not elaborate on, Victim 1's own testimony. See Surber v. State, 884 N.E.2d 856, 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (no reversible error based on drumbeat repetition claim where other witnesses’ testimony “was brief, consistent with, and did not elaborate upon [the victim's] testimony”). As such, Beachey has not persuaded us the trial court erred in admitting the challenged evidence.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   A jury trial was first held in May 2023 but ended in a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict.

Scheele, Judge.

Foley, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.