Opinion
24A-CR-782
09-13-2024
Ryshar Owens, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Talisha R. Griffin Indianapolis, Indiana Joshua Vincent Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Michelle Hawk Kazmierczak 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Marc Rothenberg, Judge The Honorable Travis Shields, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49D19-2306-F6-017555
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Talisha R. Griffin Indianapolis, Indiana
Joshua Vincent Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General
Michelle Hawk Kazmierczak Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
FELIX, JUDGE
Statement of the Case
[¶1] Ryshar Owens failed to submit to a traffic stop and fled at high speed from the police. Law enforcement eventually stopped Owens and arrested him. Owens was found guilty of resisting law enforcement and reckless driving. Owens now appeals and presents one issue for our review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting dashboard camera footage into evidence.
[¶2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] On June 17, 2023, Indiana State Trooper Maxwell Alexander was on patrol on northbound Interstate 65 in Indianapolis when he witnessed Owens driving over the speed limit and veering into the fog line on the side of the interstate. After following the vehicle, Trooper Alexander realized its license plate was not properly illuminated. Trooper Alexander then initiated a traffic stop. Once both cars came to a stop on the side of the interstate, Owens "took off," causing Trooper Alexander to go after Owens in pursuit. Tr. Vol. II at 84. After an approximately five-minute chase where Owens exited the interstate, drove through residential neighborhoods, and ran multiple red lights, Trooper Alexander was able to stop Owens and arrest him. The entire incident was captured by Trooper Alexander's dashboard camera.
[¶4] On June 18, 2023, the State charged Owens with resisting law enforcement as a Level 6 felony, operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a license as a Class C misdemeanor, and reckless driving as a Class C misdemeanor.
[¶5] At the bench trial, the State offered into evidence as Exhibit 1 a compact disk with Trooper Alexander's dashboard camera footage. The State believed that the disk only included video from the vehicle chase and Owens's arrest; however, the disk included footage after the arrest, such as Owens's intake at the jail. Trooper Alexander had only reviewed the portions of the video up to the arrest, so Owens objected to the admission of Exhibit 1 because Trooper Alexander had not watched the entire dashboard camera footage. The State informed the trial court that it only sought to publish the portions of the video that Trooper Alexander had reviewed, and the trial court admitted Exhibit 1 over Owens's objection. The State then played the first 7 minutes and 40 seconds of Exhibit 1 for the trial court. The trial court ultimately found Owens guilty of resisting law enforcement as a Level 6 felony and reckless driving as a Class C misdemeanor. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[¶6] Owens claims the trial court erred by admitting Trooper Alexander's dashboard camera footage into evidence. We review claims that the trial court improperly admitted evidence for abuse of discretion. Russell v. State, 234 N.E.3d 829, 858 (Ind. 2024) (citing Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 871 (Ind. 2012)). A trial court abuses its discretion "only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances." Id. (quoting Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind. 2001)).
[¶7] Owens claims that the State failed to properly lay the foundation to admit the footage under the silent-witness theory. Video footage is admitted through the silent-witness theory when it is offered for substantive purposes rather than demonstrative purposes. Irwin v. State, 229 N.E.3d 567, 571 (Ind.Ct.App. 2024) (citing Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1282 (Ind. 2014), cert. denied). "Evidence offered for substantive purposes acts as a silent-witness[ ] as to what activity is being depicted whereas evidence offered for demonstrative purposes is merely an aid[ ] that assist[s] in a human witness's testimony." Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Kirby v. State, 217 N.E.3d 575, 583 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023)). For evidence to be admitted under the silent-witness theory, "there must be a strong showing of authenticity and competency, including proof that the evidence was not altered." McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 561-62 (Ind. 2018) (citing Knapp, 9 N.E.3d at 1282).
[¶8] Owens failed to preserve his silent-witness argument for appeal. To preserve an evidentiary claim for appeal, the party must timely object to the admission of the evidence and state the specific grounds for objection. Ind. Evidence Rule 103(a)(1). At trial, Owens objected to the admission of Exhibit 1 because Trooper Alexander had not watched the entirety of the dashboard camera footage on the disk. Owens did not object on silent-witness grounds or argue that the State failed to demonstrate the video had not been altered. Thus, Owens has waived this argument for appeal. See Ward v. State, 203 N.E.3d 524, 531 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023) (citing Bradfield v. State, 192 N.E.3d 933, 935 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022)) ("[A] defendant may not object to the admission of evidence on one basis at trial and then raise a different basis on appeal.")
[¶9] Waiver notwithstanding, Owens's argument fails because the State did not offer the footage under the silent-witness theory. The State offered the footage as an aid to assist Trooper Alexander's testimony about the vehicle chase and the resulting arrest; thus, the State offered the footage as demonstrative evidence. See Irwin, 229 N.E.3d at 571. "The foundation for videos or photographs as demonstrative evidence requires testimony that the evidence 'accurately depict[s] the scene or occurrence as it appeared at the time in question.'" Id. (quoting Smith v. State, 491 N.E.2d 193, 196 (Ind. 1986)). Trooper Alexander testified that footage is an accurate depiction of the vehicle chase and arrest. Thus, the State laid the proper foundation to admit the footage, see id., and we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the footage into evidence.
[¶10] Affirmed.
Kenworthy, J., and Riley, Sr. J., concur.