Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The man convicted of killing Southport Police Lt. Aaron Allan has lost his arguments on appeal that due process violations and insufficient evidence undercut his murder conviction.
The defendant, Jason Brown, was convicted in 2022 of the murder of Allan and was sentenced to 55 years in prison.
The shooting happened in July 2017, when Brown drove his vehicle into a curb, causing it to roll over. Brown was left hanging upside.
Allan was one of the responding officers who arrived to help Brown. But Brown yelled profanities at Allan before fatally shooting him.
An Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department investigation of Brown’s vehicle found 18 spent bullet cartridges along with a 9 mm handgun. IMPD also found a baggie believed to contain marijuana as well as a scale.
But police did not request a blood sample at the time of his initial investigation because “[t]here was no information that would warrant us getting a blood draw at that time.” However, after consulting with the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, “the decision was made to try to obtain a blood sample” from Brown on the day of the crime.
A detective attempted to obtain the blood sample that had been taken from Brown at Eskenazi Hospital shortly after the crime. A representative of Eskenazi indicated the blood sample had been destroyed, but Brown’s urine sample, which was collected at about the same time, was still available.
Brown’s urine sample tested positive for THC, cocaine, two different types of “spice,” a synthetic cannabinoid, and hydromorphone, which was likely present because of the opioid pain medication Brown was given in the hospital.
After he was charged, Brown moved to exclude the results of the toxicology report, arguing results from a urinalysis are not relevant under Indiana Evidence Rule 401 “because impairment or intoxication cannot be inferred from the results of a urine screen.”
Meanwhile, Brown also agreed to a bench trial in exchange for the state dropping the death penalty.
In January 2022, the Marion Superior Court denied Brown’s motion to exclude the toxicology results before proceeding to trial.
Brown subsequently appealed his murder conviction, arguing that the state violated his right to due process when it failed to secure his blood sample taken shortly after the incident because such evidence may have been exculpatory.
He also argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted his urinalysis results into evidence, and that the state had not presented sufficient evidence that he knowingly killed Allan.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, with Judge Melissa May writing.
According to May, the appellate court did not need to consider the exculpatory nature of the blood sample or whether the state acted in bad faith by not preserving it because the state never possessed the blood sample. She cited Glasscock v. State, 576 N.E.2d 600 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).
“Like in Glasscock, the State never possessed the blood samples and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for the destruction of Brown’s blood samples,” May wrote. “Brown has not demonstrated a violation of his right to due process.”
As for the admission of the urinalysis results, May wrote that because the results could not pinpoint a time of usage, the evidence bore only slight relevance to the issue of whether Brown was intoxicated at the time of the crime.
“Here, any error in the admission of the urinalysis was harmless because there existed substantial independent evidence to support Brown’s conviction,” May wrote, noting “the trial court’s pronouncement of guilt suggested it did not rely on the toxicology report and instead rejected the State’s theory that Brown was intoxicated.”
Further, the trial court addressed ‑ and rejected — the evidence provided by Brown as to his theory of defense, and that rejection was supported by substantial evidence in the record, with Brown able to answer questions posed by Allan prior to the shooting and Brown providing the officer with his driver’s license when requested.
Additionally, Brown shouted, attempting to locate his gun, while Allan was in the vehicle rendering aid.
Brown also shot his gun until it was empty, firing a total of 18 shots, 10 of which hit Allan.
“Finally, the State’s expert, Dr. (Troy) Payner, testified that, in his opinion, Brown’s behavior was not consistent with someone suffering a seizure and the CT scan taken of Brown shortly after the accident did not indicate the head trauma Brown claimed to have suffered prior to the car accident,” May wrote. “Brown’s reliance on his expert, Dr. Sheila Arnold, and his alternative interpretation of the evidence is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do.”
Judges Leanna Weissmann and Peter Foley concurred in Jason Dane Brown v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-01241.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.