Opinion
23A-CR-3033
10-18-2024
Kyle Lee William Roberts, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Christopher Kunz Marion County Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Sierra A. Murray Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Angela Dow Davis, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49D27-2110-MR-32419
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Christopher Kunz
Marion County Public Defender
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Sierra A. Murray
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Judges Vaidik and Foley concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Weissmann, Judge.
[¶1] Kyle Roberts was convicted of murder for shooting and killing Martin Griffin. Though Roberts claimed he acted in self-defense, a home surveillance video of his actions just prior to the shooting suggested otherwise. On appeal, Roberts claims the video was not properly authenticated and that the trial court erred by admitting it into evidence. We disagree and affirm.
Facts
[¶2] Roberts shot and killed his mother's ex-boyfriend, Griffin, during a dispute in the backyard of Roberts's house. When IMPD Homicide Detective Gary Smith arrived on the scene shortly thereafter, he discovered that a surveillance camera in Roberts's bedroom had recorded Roberts's actions before and after the shooting.
[¶3] On the surveillance video, Roberts enters his bedroom and retrieves a semiautomatic pistol. He tells two people in the room that he is arguing with Griffin because Griffin will not leave the house. He then exits. A few minutes later, Roberts returns to the room and exchanges the pistol for a shotgun. While doing so, Roberts says: "He don't wanna bump when I put the dog outside... You wanna play with me now. I just [indiscernible] the shotgun." Exh. 52, Clip 21 at 1:20-1:35. Roberts then leaves the room again, and less than a minute later, a gunshot rings out. Out of frame, Roberts is heard telling his mother: "I didn't mean to." Id. at 2:35-2:37. He then comes back into the bedroom and tells the people therein: "Come on, I just shot [Griffin]." Id. at 2:43-2:44. Roberts grabs his pistol and shotgun, then runs out of the room.
"Bump" is a slang word for fighting. Tr. Vol. II, p. 193.
Exhibit 52 contains two video clips: 20H57M40S-14400WN-DL05 and 21H03M392-14400WN-DL07. We refer to the latter as "Clip 21."
[¶4] The State charged Roberts with murder and Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. At Roberts's jury trial, the State sought to admit the surveillance video into evidence through the testimony of Detective Smith. Detective Smith described the process of finding the camera, reviewing the footage, and verifying the video's date and time stamp. He also confirmed that the video played in court was a true and accurate copy of the video that was recovered from the camera. Roberts objected to admission of the video, claiming an inadequate foundation was laid to establish the video's accuracy and authenticity. The court overruled the objection and admitted the video.
[¶5] Later in the trial, Roberts testified that he retrieved the pistol and shotgun from his bedroom, confronted Griffin, shot him, and then fled with both guns. But Roberts claimed he acted in the heat of passion and in self-defense because Griffin allegedly made threats of violence and refused to leave the house. The State refuted this claim, in part, by citing the video in which Roberts said Griffin did not want to "bump," or fight. Id. at 1:20-1:24.
[¶6] The jury found Roberts guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to a total of 75 years in prison. Roberts appeals his conviction, renewing his argument that the video was improperly admitted because the State failed to adequately demonstrate the video's authenticity.
Discussion and Decision
[¶7] We review the admission or exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 561 (Ind. 2018). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or when the court misinterprets the law. Vanryn v. State, 155 N.E.3d 1254, 1264 (Ind. 2020).
[¶8] Here, the trial court admitted the video under the silent witness theory, which provides a basis for authenticating evidence under Indiana Evidence Rule 901. See Kirby v. State, 217 N.E.3d 575, 588 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023). This theory is used when no testifying witness observed what a photo or video portrays. McFall v. State, 71 N.E.3d 383, 388 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017). To be admitted in this way, "there must be a strong showing of authenticity and competency, including proof that the evidence was not altered." McCallister, 91 N.E.3d at 561-62.
[¶9] Roberts argues the State failed to make this showing because it did not explain how the camera worked or how the footage was extracted. But the State's sponsoring witness, Detective Smith, did address those points. His testimony revealed: (1) the camera was actively recording when police found it; (2) the camera's footage was stored on an internal S.D. card; (3) police accessed the video directly from that S.D. card; (4) the video's date and time stamp was accurate because it lined up with the officer's arrival that night; (5) the scene depicted was Roberts' bedroom; and (6) the video played in court was a true and accurate copy of the video Detective Smith watched from the S.D. card.
[¶10] Though the foundational requirements of the silent witness theory are demanding, they are "not absolute." See Stark v. State, 489 N.E.2d 43, 47 (Ind. 1986). Detective Smith's testimony was sufficient to establish the video's authenticity and competency with "relative certainty." See Flowers v. State, 154 N.E.3d 854, 869 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020); see also McCallister, 91 N.E.3d at 561-62 (finding video authenticated by testimony identifying depicted setting, verifying date and time, and explaining recording and storage of surveillance tapes).
[¶11] Moreover, the surrounding circumstances strengthen the reliability and accuracy of the video. See generally McFall, 71 N.E.3d at 388 (holding court may look to "surrounding circumstances" to ensure proper foundation was laid). Such circumstances can include a short period of time between the recording and viewing of a video and the presence of other evidence that independently corroborates the depicted events. See generally Kirby, 217 N.E.3d at 588. Here, the crime scene was promptly sealed and police seized the camera the same night as the shooting, making alteration unlikely. And Roberts's own recitation of the night's events was consistent with the events depicted in the video.
[¶12] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the video after finding it was properly authenticated. We affirm.
Vaidik, J., and Foley, J., concur.