MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 03 2020, 8:36 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Matthew J. McGovern Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Megan M. Smith
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Casey Carpenter, September 3, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-594
v. Appeal from the Harrison Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Joseph L.
Appellee-Plaintiff Claypool, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
31D01-1811-F3-833
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-594 | September 3, 2020 Page 1 of 11
Case Summary
[1] Following a jury trial, Casey Carpenter was convicted of Level 3 felony
aggravated battery and Class A misdemeanor interference with reporting a
crime. On appeal, Carpenter contends that the trial court committed
fundamental error by permitting certain testimony of a police officer.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] In October 2018, Heather Culver was pregnant and in an on and off
relationship with Carpenter, staying either with him, at a women’s shelter, or at
the Super 8 Motel throughout the month. Carpenter and Culver both knew
Michael Dell, who often provided rides and help to Culver and had known her
since she was about thirteen years old. Dell was much older, around seventy
years old in 2018, and struggled with walking since a stroke in 2003.
[4] On or about October 23, 2018, Culver sought assistance from Dell. He drove
her to the Super 8 Motel and spent the night with her. Dell made some sexual
advances toward Culver that night that were beyond what he had done in the
past. During this encounter, Culver allowed him to take pictures of her bare
breasts with his cellphone.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-594 | September 3, 2020 Page 2 of 11
[5] Thereafter, Carpenter spoke with Culver and visited her at the motel. Upon
learning of Culver’s encounter with Dell, Carpenter called 9-1-1 in the early
evening of October 25 and indicated that he would like police to retrieve Dell’s
phone, which contained the pictures of Culver, and arrest Dell. Carpenter
suggested that Dell used fear to obtain the pictures and possibly drugged her.
He also asked for an ambulance so that Culver could be mentally evaluated.
The 9-1-1 dispatcher asked to talk with Culver, who acknowledged that Dell put
her in “an uncomfortable position” but that she “really d[id]n’t have anything
to tell the police.” Transcript Vol. 3 at 37. Carpenter became aggravated during
the call and left the motel.
[6] While Carpenter was gone, Officer Jason Harrell and other officers conducted a
welfare check at the motel. He spoke with Culver, who seemed distraught. She
consented to a search of her motel room, which turned up no drugs. The
officers then left Culver alone in her room.
[7] At some point that night, Carpenter returned to the motel and picked up Culver
in his truck. Carpenter called and informed Dell that they were coming to his
residence to retrieve something. Dell greeted them and, once inside, Carpenter
asked for Dell’s cellphone. Dell handed it over and then sat in his recliner as
Carpenter looked at the phone. Carpenter became angry when he could not
find the pictures of Culver. Carpenter then twisted and broke the phone as he
came toward Dell yelling. Dell claimed that he had deleted the pictures and
also stated, “She’s not your wife, you’re not married.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 189.
As Dell began to rise from his chair, Carpenter punched him twice in the head
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-594 | September 3, 2020 Page 3 of 11
and once in the gut. Dell briefly lost consciousness and then awoke to blood
running down his face. He went to the bathroom to clean up, and Carpenter
followed behind, saying that it did not hurt and warning that if Dell called the
police, he would come back and shoot Dell. Carpenter and Culver then left
together.
[8] Dell’s pain from his injuries increased over time, and he could not see out of his
left eye. As a result, he went to the ER at the local county hospital on October
27 and was transferred by ambulance to a trauma hospital. Dell reported that
he had not sought medical care earlier out of fear. The ER nurse contacted
police regarding the assault. Officer Thomas Yoder spoke with Dell at the ER
before the ambulance transport. Dell was reluctant to offer information and
indicated that if he identified his assailant, he would be killed. He eventually
acknowledged that Carpenter attacked him but refused to press charges. Officer
Yoder made a report but did not submit it to the prosecutor.
[9] About two weeks later, upon learning that Dell’s injuries were more significant
than originally believed – possible permanent loss of sight in his left eye, Officer
Yoder notified Dell that he needed to move forward with the case. Thereafter,
Officer Yoder spoke with Carpenter, who acknowledged that he “smoked [Dell]
in the head several times.” Id. at 155. Carpenter indicated that he did so
because he was upset about the photos taken of Culver and the possible
involvement of drugs. Carpenter also indicated that he thought Dell might
have had a gun during the confrontation at Dell’s house. After speaking with
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-594 | September 3, 2020 Page 4 of 11
Carpenter, Officer Yoder contacted Dell, who indicated that there was no
reason Carpenter would have felt threatened during the encounter.
[10] On November 19, 2018, the State charged Carpenter with Level 3 felony
aggravated battery, Level 6 felony intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor
interference with reporting a crime. The State later added a habitual offender
enhancement. Before trial, the intimidation count was dismissed.
[11] Carpenter’s jury trial was held on January 21 and 22, 2020. Dell, Culver,
Officers Yoder and Harrell, and the ER nurse testified for the State. Carpenter
testified on his own behalf, acknowledging that he punched Dell multiple times
after confronting him about the pictures and breaking Dell’s phone. Carpenter,
more than twenty-five years younger than Dell, claimed that he did so in self-
defense. Carpenter testified:
Dell got so mad that he told [Culver] to get the blank out of his
house before I blow your blank head off. And he was sitting in a
recliner, and he grabbed the arms and pulled himself forward,
and reached over to his left. And when he started to come up,
that’s when I threw the phone and I jumped over and I hit
Michael Dell…. I hit him first in the left eye. Michael Dell tried
to stand up out of his chair, and when he reached down, I didn’t
know if he was trying to stand up or reach for a weapon a second
time, so I hit him in the chest, knocked him right back down.
While he was trying to grab ahold of my arms, he threw his
hands back down. So I hit him again in the other eye.
Transcript Vol. 3 at 29-30. Dell, however, testified that he does not own a gun,
and Culver testified that there was no threat to Carpenter. On the other hand,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-594 | September 3, 2020 Page 5 of 11
she indicated that Dell was the one who appeared afraid and that she feared for
his safety as well.
[12] The jury found Carpenter guilty of aggravated battery and interference with
reporting a crime. Carpenter then admitted that he was a habitual offender.
On February 10, 2020, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of
thirty-six years in prison. Carpenter now appeals. Additional information will
be provided below as needed.
Discussion & Decision
[13] Carpenter claims that Officer Harrell improperly testified about trying to get
Culver into a battered woman’s shelter on the night of October 25, 2018. He
argues that the evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial and that it
constituted improper character evidence or evidence of prior bad acts under
Ind. Evidence Rule 404. 1 Carpenter acknowledges that he did not object to the
testimony at trial on any of these grounds but claims that its admission
constituted fundamental error because the it “saddled [him] with the impossible
1
Evid. R. 404 provides in relevant part:
(a) Character Evidence.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to
prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or
trait….
b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a
person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in
accordance with the character….
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-594 | September 3, 2020 Page 6 of 11
burden of proving that he did not conform to his character trait as a violent
person who had committed prior acts of battery.” Appellant’s Brief at 23.
[14] It is well established that the fundamental error exception to the
contemporaneous objection rule is exceedingly narrow and applies only where
“the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or
potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant
fundamental due process.” Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010)
(quoting Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind. 2006)). Our Supreme
Court has emphasized that the exception is available only in egregious
circumstances where the claimed error made a fair trial impossible or
constituted clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due
process. Id.; see also Oldham v. State, 779 N.E.2d 1162, 1170 (Ind. Ct. App.
2002) (exception applies only where the actual or potential harm cannot be
denied and the error is so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a
fair trial impossible), trans. denied. We do not find such egregious circumstances
in this case.
[15] Here, the following occurred during Officer Harrell’s direct testimony, when he
was answering questions related to responding to a second dispatch to the motel
on October 25, 2018: 2
2
Immediately prior to this, Officer Harrell testified regarding the first dispatch in which Carpenter had called
9-1-1 resulting in the officers performing a welfare check on Culver and finding no drugs in her motel room.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-594 | September 3, 2020 Page 7 of 11
Q At this time do you recall who the caller was that initiated
the call?
A I don’t remember exactly. I do remember speaking to
[Culver]. I don’t know who called that in the second call. It may
have been [Culver] herself.
****
Q Okay. So at this point we are at the Super 8 Motel for the
second time on October 25th, 2018? Once you get there, you
said that you spoke with Ms. Culver?
A Correct. I spoke with her at the front desk.
****
Q Did Ms. Culver express any concerns regarding Mr. Dell?
A I believe she stated he had her phone.
Q Mr. Dell had her phone?
A No, not Mr. Dell.
Q Okay. At any point did you give Ms. Culver information
on how to get into a battered woman’s shelter?
A I did.
Q And why did you do that?
A She expressed some concerns and she was no longer able
to stay at the hotel. I was trying to get her assistance to go
somewhere. So I made contact with this shelter in Salem in an
attempt to get her a bed.
Aside from being the same day, the timing of the second dispatch is not entirely clear, though it could be
reasonably inferred that it occurred after the incident at Dell’s home.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-594 | September 3, 2020 Page 8 of 11
Q And did she go there?
A No. She declined to go.
Q Did she want to go anywhere else that evening?
A She did.
Q Where did she want to go?
A Mr. Dell’s residence.
Transcript Vol. 2 at 162-63. The prosecutor then turned the questioning to a
welfare check at Dell’s residence in November, which led officers to pursuing
the charges against Carpenter.
[16] On appeal, Carpenter complains, in the context of fundamental error, that the
above testimony was used by the State to improperly paint him as a dangerous
person who battered his pregnant girlfriend and, thus, was the type of person
that would beat an old man. Specifically, he argues:
The erroneous admission of this negative character evidence and
this implied evidence of prior misconduct against his pregnant
girlfriend negated the due process presumption of innocence that
forms the bedrock of our criminal justice system. Indeed, it
forced Casey to defend, not only against the charged conduct, but
also against the inflammatory misconduct that the trial court
should have excluded. Thus, the admission of this evidence made
a fair trial impossible.
Appellant’s Brief at 23.
[17] We fail to see how the challenged testimony here says much if anything about
Carpenter, as there were no references made to Carpenter during this portion of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-594 | September 3, 2020 Page 9 of 11
the testimony and no indication that he had battered Culver. Rather, we view
the testimony as indicating that Culver did not report any concerns related to
Dell and, in fact, she wanted to go to his residence. In other words, she was not
afraid of him. Further, Officer Harrell simply indicated that he contacted the
shelter to find somewhere Culver could go, as she could not stay at the motel.
He did not testify that Culver had been battered by Carpenter or anyone else.
[18] Even if the testimony constituted inadmissible character evidence, we cannot
say that this passing and vague reference during a two-day trial made a fair trial
impossible. See Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 683 n.7 (Ind. 2013)
(“Assuming for the sake of argument that evidence of the burglary was
inadmissible character evidence … he still has failed to show how introduction
of the evidence amounted to fundamental error. The evidence supporting the
jury’s guilty of murder verdict was overwhelming”). Moreover, any error was
at most harmless. Carpenter’s credibility as a witness was properly impeached
under Indiana Evid. Rule 609(a) with his admission that he had prior
convictions for burglary and rape. Thus, there was evidence before the jury
regarding his dangerousness aside from any potential implication that he
battered his pregnant girlfriend. Additionally, there was no dispute in the
evidence that Carpenter went to Dell’s residence, confronted him about the
pictures, broke Dell’s phone in anger, yelled at him, and punched him multiple
times. Carpenter’s defense was simply that he thought Dell might be armed
with a gun as Dell sat in the recliner. The evidence, however, overwhelmingly
establishes that Dell was not armed and that Carpenter was the initial aggressor
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-594 | September 3, 2020 Page 10 of 11
inside Dell’s home. And even if believed, Carpenter’s testimony did not
establish that he acted in self-defense. There is no merit to Carpenter’s claim of
fundamental error.
[19] Judgment affirmed.
Riley, J. and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-594 | September 3, 2020 Page 11 of 11