FOR PUBLICATION


ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

KATHLEEN M. SWEENEY            STEVE CARTER
Marion County Public Defender Agency    Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
MATTHEW D. FISHER
            Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

JEREMIAH BEVERLY,       )

                             )
Appellant-Defendant,         )
                             )
vs.                          )    No. 49A02-0304-CR-298
                             )
STATE OF INDIANA,            )
                             )
Appellee-Plaintiff.          )

Washington v. State, 740 N.E.2d 1241, 1246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. Beverly, who does not dispute this authority, contends that Berry v. State, 766 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied, controls the present case.
In Berry, a Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy was dispatched to a Burger King due to a reported disturbance. An anonymous caller reported to the dispatcher that a suspect had produced a firearm and had waved it around in the parking lot. The caller also reported that the suspect had told individuals before he left the parking lot that he was going to “cap someone.” Id. at 806. The caller described the suspect as a white male in a green jacket driving an S10 Blazer and provided a partial license plate number. Minutes later and approximately six blocks away from the Burger King, the deputy pulled over an S10 Blazer, which had six out of seven matching numbers on the license plate, driven by Berry.
     On appeal, this Court held that the deputy improperly stopped Berry because the stop was based solely on an anonymous tip that lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. Id. at 810. Specifically, the deputy did not observe any activity that would have provided an independent basis or reasonable suspicion for stopping Berry. Id. Additionally, the anonymous caller failed to provide any predictions of Berry’s future behavior that would establish that he or she had inside knowledge of Berry’s affairs. Id.
The present case is readily distinguishable from Berry. Here, Deputies Oatis and Nike received reports from dispatch that a “gold, full-size SUV driven by a black male” was involved in a shooting and was near Michigan Road and 71st Street. Tr. p. 284. Dispatch broadcasted these reports based on numerous 911 calls that had been made within five or six minutes reporting that the SUV “was driving up and down Michigan Road shooting.” Tr. p. 284; see also Tr. p. 33. Although Deputies Oatis and Nike did not hear the actual 911 calls, they heard the information that dispatch broadcasted concerning those calls. Deputy Oatis explained the following at the suppression hearing:
[Deputy Nike and I] received in a matter of probably five, six minutes or so, we received probably ten or twelve updates where a different dispatcher, they were getting a phone call and they would hit in and say report of shots fired. One time it was southbound on Michigan Road from 71st, one time it was northbound on Michigan Road, eastbound on Westlane from Michigan Road, southbound on Township Line, they were just all over in the general area of 71st and Michigan.

Tr. p. 16.
    Unlike Berry, where there was a single anonymous caller, here several people called 911 concerning shots being fired from a specific car at a specific location. See footnote Although the deputies did not observe any activity that would have provided an independent basis or reasonable suspicion for stopping Beverly and the callers failed to provide any predictions of Beverly’s future behavior, the calls bear independent indicia of reliability because they corroborate each other in regards to the fact that shots were being fired and to the general description of the car, driver, and their location. See United States v. Schaefer, 87 F.3d 562, 566 (1st Cir. 1996) (“Courts often have held that consistency between the reports of two independent informants helps to validate both accounts.”). Because Deputies Oatis and Nike had reasonable suspicion to stop Beverly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Beverly’s statements to the deputies during the investigatory stop into evidence.

     IN THE
     COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA



JEREMIAH BEVERLY,    )
)
Appellant-Defendant,    )
)
vs.    )    No. 49A02-0304-CR-298
)
STATE OF INDIANA.    )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff.    )

    APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
    The Honorable Grant Hawkins, Judge
    Cause No. 49G05-0111-CF-216204

KIRSCH, Judge, dissenting

    I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority holding that the statement made by the victim to the paramedic (“Jerry shot me”) is admissible as a dying declaration as a matter of law because I do not believe that the evidence here leads solely to the conclusion that the victim knew that death was imminent and had abandoned all hope of recovery. I believe the majority impermissibly invades the province of the trial court in making what I believe is a factual determination.