Leandrew Beasley, Jr., Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Leandrew Beasley, Jr. appeals his convictions for armed robbery, as a Level 3 felony; unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, as a Level 4 felony; resisting law enforcement, as a Level 6 felony; and resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor. Beasley raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted certain evidence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] At around 9:30 p.m. on October 20, 2024, Jack Dillon returned to his home on Alabama Street in Indianapolis. When he turned into an alley toward his detached garage, he noticed a group of individuals in “street clothes.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 93. Dillon “flicked [his] lights” at them and proceeded to drive into his garage. Id. Dillon then parked his car, opened the door, and “[i]mmediately” felt someone hold “a gun to the back of [his] head.” Id. The gun “was not a handgun” but was “an assault rifle” that was “larger than a normal gun.” Id. at 93-95. The individuals, who were “wearing masks,” ordered Dillon to get on the ground, and they took his phone, keys, and wallet. Id. at 94. The group then left in Dillon's Jeep. Dillon was able to walk to a local business, where he called his father. Once his father arrived, they called the police.

[3] Officers with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department responded to the scene. One officer was able to help Dillon use an app to track the location of his phone, which was found nearby. Other officers began pursuing Dillon's Jeep. Once the driver was aware of the police following the car, he drove “into oncoming traffic and accelerated at a high speed.” Id. at 127. The chase ended when the Jeep crashed near a wooded area. Officers then saw four individuals exit the Jeep and run into the woods. Officers pursued the individuals on foot and were able to apprehend Derrick Johnson. Following a search of his person, officers found 9-millimeter ammunition, a magazine for a 9-millimeter firearm, and a speed loader. Johnson was wearing a dark hoodie, a ski mask, and gloves. Officers also used a K-9 unit and drones to search for the other suspects. Officers located Beasley six to eight feet up in a tree. Officers found a phone in Beasley's possession.

[4] Officers searched the Jeep. In it, they found a 9-millimeter pistol with an extended magazine, another handgun, and an “ARP,” which is “a pistol built on a rifle platform” that “has a shorter barrel length and no stock.” Id at 191. Officers also found an empty box of ammunition that is consistent with the ammunition used in a rifle.

[5] Officers later searched Beasley's phone. Officers found a picture of Beasley wearing a black mask, which was dated October 13, 2024. Officers also found two pictures, timestamped 11:45 a.m. and 12:38 p.m. on October 20, which depicted an ARP. Officers additionally found messages on Beasley's phone. In one message from October 17, Beasley said: “Bet, I just bought an arp.” Ex. Vol. 2 at 99. In a message dated October 19, Beasley said: “when u get back I gotta get my bullets nd flashlight.” Id. at 128. And in another message on October 19, Beasley said: “Bet nd take me to get dese bullets ima give you gas money.” Id. at 129.

[6] The State charged Beasley with armed robbery, as a Level 3 felony; unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, as a Level 4 felony; resisting law enforcement, as a Level 6 felony; and resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor. Prior to trial, the State filed a notice of its intent to offer Rule 404(b) evidence of a prior investigation into Beasley and Johnson to show the relationship between the two individuals. The trial court granted the State's motion over Beasley's objection but stated that it would give a limiting instruction to the jury.

[7] During the trial, Dillon testified to the offense, and several officers testified to their response, the apprehension of Beasley and Johnson, and the result of the searches of the people and the Jeep. In addition, the State presented the testimony of Detective Chad Amos with the Carmel Police Department. Detective Amos testified, over Beasley's objection, that he had investigated Beasley, Johnson, and three other individuals in 2021. Detective Amos testified that Beasley and Johnson had worn “masks and gloves,” that they fled from police in a vehicle, and that “[m]ultiple firearms were left behind in that vehicle[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 227. After Detective Amos testified, the court gave the following instruction:

The evidence that you've just heard should be considered by you only as to the relationship, acquaintance or companionship of the defendant with Derrick Johnson. Evidence which suggests that the defendant committed a crime on a previous occasion is not evidence that the defendant committed the current offenses and should not be considered by you in determining whether or not the State's proven the charges in this case beyond a reasonable doubt, okay?

Id. at 228.

[8] At the conclusion of the first phase of the trial, the jury found Beasley guilty of robbery and both resisting law enforcement charges. It also found that Beasley had possessed a firearm. Thereafter, Beasley admitted to being a serious violent felon. The court entered judgment of conviction accordingly and sentenced Beasley to an aggregate term of fourteen years in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Beasley asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the State to elicit testimony of a prior bad act. 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. 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.

Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459, 466 (Ind. 2015). Beasley specifically contends that the court abused its discretion when it allowed the State to elicit testimony that he and Johnson had previously been investigated for a crime that included them wearing masks and gloves, fleeing from police, and leaving weapons in the car. Beasley maintains that “the State improperly invited the jury to draw the inference that [he] committed the charged robbery because he had engaged in strikingly similar conduct before.” Appellant's Br. at 13.

[10] However, we need not decide whether the trial court erred when it admitted that evidence. “It is well settled that a claim of error in the admission or exclusion of evidence will not prevail on appeal unless a substantial right of the party is affected.” Caesar v. State, 139 N.E.3d 289, 292 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quotation marks omitted), trans. denied. “That is, even if the trial court errs in admitting or excluding evidence, this Court will not reverse the defendant's conviction if the error is harmless.” Id. “An error in the admission of evidence is harmless where the ‘probable impact’ of the erroneously admitted evidence, ‘in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights’ of the defendant.” Id. (quoting Ind. Appellate Rule 66(A)).

[11] Here, the challenged evidence was testimony that Beasley and Johnson had previously been investigated for a crime during which they wore masks and gloves, fled from police, and left weapons in a vehicle. But even if the court abused its discretion when it admitted that evidence, there was substantial other evidence to demonstrate that Beasley had committed the instant offenses. Indeed, approximately one week before the robbery, Beasley took a photo of himself wearing a black mask. Two days before the robbery, he sent a message that he had just bought an ARP. The day prior to the robbery, Beasley sent two messages referencing the need for bullets. On the day of the offense, he took a photo of the ARP. Then, following the police chase, officers found Beasley hiding in the woods after having fled from the stolen Jeep. And officers found an ARP in the Jeep and an empty box of ammunition consistent with the firearm next to the Jeep.

[12] Moreover, the court provided a limiting instruction to the jury specifically precluding them from considering that evidence for anything other than the relationship between Beasley and Johnson. The instruction properly advised the jury of the purpose for its admission. In light of all of the evidence in this case and the limiting instruction, we can say with confidence that the probable impact of Beasley's prior bad act was sufficiently minor so as to not affect his substantial rights.¹ Accordingly, we conclude that any error in the admission of that evidence was harmless. We therefore affirm Beasley's convictions.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Contrary to Beasley's assertions, Detective Amos’ testimony was not “extensive.” Appellant's Br. at 12. Rather, over the course of a two-day jury trial, Detective Amos’ testimony consisted of only five substantive questions asked by the State, which he answered with one- or two-word responses. See Tr. Vol. 2 at 227.

Bailey, Judge.

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