Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A trial court’s remark endorsing “80% certainty” as a description of the reasonable doubt standard was improper but did not rise to the level of fundamental error for a woman convicted of murder in a fatal robbery, the Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled Monday in affirming the woman’s conviction and 60-year prison sentence.
In June 2021, Tyrone Leftridge, Shianne Brooks-Brown and her daughter were living with appellant-defendant Jennifer Dean in Flora.
Brooks-Brown has known Dean since she was 3 years old and referred to her as “mom.” She also has a learning disability, struggles with remembering things and has an 11th grade education.
For a two-year period when Brooks-Brown previously lived with Dean, Dean would either coordinate or assist in Brooks-Brown’s participation in prostitution on a weekly basis.
Leftridge, Brooks-Brown and Dean proposed a plan to use Brooks-Brown’s profile on the MeetMe dating app to lure an individual with the prospect of exchanging $120 for sex. There was conflicting evidence regarding whether the original plan was for Brooks-Brown to engage in prostitution or for Leftridge and Brooks-Brown to rob the individual.
Dean originally suggested a trailer park as a location for the meeting, but it later changed to a nearby alley.
Dean was to receive $20 for watching Brooks-Brown’s daughter while she and Leftridge met the individual. Dean also provided Leftridge with a bandana, and either Brooks-Brown or Leftridge with a small baseball bat.
Willie Smith Jr. responded to the solicitation and met Brooks-Brown in the alley sometime between 1 and 3 a.m. Leftridge hid behind a nearby detached garage.
Brooks-Brown didn’t have sex with Smith, and at some point, he got out of the car and pulled out a pocketknife. Either Brooks-Brown or Leftridge hit Smith on the head with the bat. Smith fell to the ground, where he was struck several more times.
Brooks-Brown and Leftridge returned to Dean’s house with the bat, $120, and Smith’s cellphone and wallet. Brooks-Brown told Dean to contact the police because a man was hurt, but she refused. Instead, she told Leftridge to “get rid of the evidence” and “bleach the bat.”
Smith left the alley and entered a nearby house, where the owners discovered him lying on their couch and contacted the police.
Flora Police Chief James Bishop responded and noted Smith had “substantial trauma” to his face and only moaned when spoken to. Smith later died from his injuries.
Bishop was familiar with Dean, so he visited her house and showed her the photo of Smith and asked if she knew him. Dean denied that she did.
Law enforcement later found Smith’s car with a receipt for an ATM withdrawal of $120 from 1:05 a.m. that morning.
They also found surveillance camera footage from 2:39 a.m. of Leftridge dressed in all black leaving Dean’s house with a bag and then returning without the bag. The footage also showed Leftridge leaving the house in different clothing.
Leftridge and Brooks-Brown were stopped by law enforcement as they were packing up a car in front of Dean’s house. The officers recognized Leftridge from the surveillance footage and saw $100 in $20 bills in the cubby of the door by him.
The officers determined they had probable cause to arrest Leftridge and brought him to Carroll County Jail.
While Leftridge was in jail, he spoke on the phone and exchanged text messages with K.C., who is the mother of his daughter. He told her that he was an accomplice of robbery and that the truth was going to come out.
During the investigation, law enforcement discovered that Brooks-Brown had two cellphones and that there was a gap of information missing on one of her phones. Two days after the robbery, Dean reported that she found a wallet in her living room, but she didn’t know who it belonged to.
Dean and Brooks-Brown changed their stories several times while speaking with law enforcement. Both were arrested.
Dean, specifically, was charged with one count of felony murder and one count of felony conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury.
While the two women were in jail, Dean encouraged Brooks-Brown to change her story so she could get out. Dean also wrote Brooks-Brown a letter saying Dean was asked to watch Brooks-Brown’s daughter while she and Leftridge “finesse someone — that don’t mean to hurt anyone.”
A jury trial was held in April 2022.
During voir dire, the Carroll Circuit Court instructed prospective jurors on the reasonable doubt standard.
One prospective juror, when asked how powerful the proof needs to be, said a 16 on a scale of one to 20.
The court said, “It’s perfect, 80 percent. I mean, he nailed it.”
Neither Dean nor the state objected to the court’s remark and that prospective juror was not selected.
During the jury trial, Leftridge and Brooks-Brown testified.
The jury found Dean guilty, and the trial court entered judgment of conviction on the felony murder count. The count of felony conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury was dismissed due to double jeopardy concerns.
The trial court found Dean’s criminal history to be an aggravating factor, but found no mitigators. She was sentenced to 60 years in the Indiana Department of Correction.
Dean appealed her conviction and sentence.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that it could not say that the trial court’s remark on the reasonable doubt standard during voir dire constituted fundamental error, and also finding Dean’s remaining arguments without merit.
The first issue the appellate court addressed was whether the trial court committed fundamental error by endorsing 80% certainty as a description of the reasonable doubt standard.
“By endorsing eighty-percent certainty as a description of the reasonable doubt standard here, the trial court misinformed the jury on one of the most critical protections our Constitution provides for the criminally accused. We, thus, caution our trial courts to avoid attempting to quantify the reasonable doubt standard — period,” Judge Elizabeth Tavitas wrote. “The trial court’s remark, however, does not automatically require reversal.
“… At all other points, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the reasonable doubt standard, including at the most critical juncture — immediately before deliberation,” Tavitas wrote. “… The trial court should not have attempted to quantify the reasonable doubt standard; however, in the context of the entire trial, we cannot say that the trial court’s remark rises to the level of fundamental error.”
The second issue that was brought to the court was whether the state presented sufficient evidence to support Dean’s conviction of felony murder.
The court found the evidence to be sufficient and affirmed the conviction.
“Here, the State presented evidence that Dean helped plan the robbery, identified a location in which to commit the robbery, provided the bat and bandana, helped cover up the evidence, lied to police, and encouraged Shianne to lie as well,” Tavitas wrote. “We find this evidence sufficient to support a finding that Dean was an accomplice to the robbery.”
Further, “Dean provided Tyrone and Shianne with the bat and bandana.” the judge continued. “It was reasonably foreseeable that the bat could be used in a violent manner, and in fact, it was. Accordingly, the felony murder doctrine is applicable, and the State presented sufficient evidence to support Dean’s conviction.”
Lastly, the appellate court addressed whether Dean’s sentence is inappropriate.
Dean compared her 60-year sentence to Leftridge’s 45-year sentence. However, the court pointed out that Leftridge pleaded guilty and she did not.
“It is true that Tyrone might have ‘struck the fatal blows’ that killed Willie,” Tavitas wrote. “That, however, does not diminish Dean’s role in the conspiracy, which included planning the robbery, providing the murder weapon, and covering up the evidence. Not all co-conspirators are entitled to the same sentence, and in fact, we trust our trial courts to carefully consider the unique set of aggravating and mitigating factors in each case.”
Judges Melissa May and Cale Bradford concurred in Jennifer L. Dean v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-2104.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.