Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Friday in the case of a man sentenced for murdering his girlfriend, with judges weighing whether the man’s cell phone was legally seized for evidence.
The case, Alsham Laster v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-2699, was presented to appellate judges Cale Bradford, Rudolph Pyle and Dana Kenworthy at the Indiana Fever’s Gainbridge Fieldhouse practice court.
Several Indianapolis-area high school students were in attendance as part of the court’s Appeals on Wheels program, which brings oral arguments to schools around Indiana to educate students on the state’s judiciary process.
During the argument, students heard as both prosecution and defense attorneys presented their case to the panel of judges.
According to court records, Laster was sentenced to 62 years in prison after being found guilty of murdering his girlfriend, Latisha Burnett, in July 2021.
On July 11, 2021, gunshots were heard near Laster and Burnett’s home. Neighbors also reported seeing only Laster go in and out of the home a few hours before he called 911 to report Burnett’s death.
When Laster was brought in for questioning, his phone was seized, and a warrant for the phone was denied.
Additional information was added to the warrant and 22 hours after his phone was seized, another warrant was submitted to a different judge and granted.
Before his jury trial, Laster filed a motion to suppress, saying his phone was unlawfully seized. The trial court found it was reasonable for police to seize the phone and denied his motion.
Evidence from the phone was admitted at trial and Laster was later found guilty.
On appeal, Laster argues the seizure was unlawful, while the state argued it was reasonable under exigent circumstances because it kept any evidence on the phone from being removed.
During Friday’s oral argument, the defense raised the point that Laster was not formally under arrest when his phone was seized, but was in custody in handcuffs.
Attorneys further argued the state was “warrant shopping” when it applied for a second warrant with a different judge after the first was denied.
The state, in turn, argued they made it clear to the second judge that their first warrant application was denied and that the probable cause affidavit they submitted included more evidence than what was presented in the first application.
In supporting its argument for exigent circumstances, the state argued that while it did not turn off the phone, take the battery out or put it in airplane mode to protect its contents, its seizure was sufficient to keep it out of Laster’s hands, where he could try to delete information or get rid of the phone altogether.
Students were not allowed to ask about the case, but could ask the judges about the judicial system and their experience in their roles.
Questions included how being a judge has impacted their mental health and what it takes to become an appellate judge.
The latter question produced the following answer from Bradford:
“In some ways, it sounds like none of us can keep a job,” he said.
All three judges emphasized that the experiences they had prior to becoming judges differed, with all three holding several jobs that set them on different paths to get to where they are now. But the variety in experience is what made them appealing candidates for the role.
Pyle, for example, was an Indiana State trooper before attending law school, while Kenworthy was a social worker.
The panel expressed their gratitude for the roles they have, and that, while difficult, experience joyous moments at work.
Keyon Jemison, a student at Believe Circle City High School, said he enjoyed watching the judges and attorneys deliberate the case right in front of him.
“We had, like a page to review before this that had, a summary or whatever. And so to hear them, like, actually go on about details and including what the case was about, it was a very interesting thing to watch,” Jemison said.
Friday’s argument was the last of three oral arguments the appellate court heard on the road this month.
Next, a three-judge panel will head to DePauw University in Greencastle on Sept. 6 to hear arguments on A.H. v. State, 24A-JV-370.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.