Snapchat video of man with gun admissible, COA rules

A popular social media app contributed to a man’s conviction, which he argued portrayed him in the wrong light under Evidence Rule 404(b). However, the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected his argument when it found the video was not meant to target his character, but rather the evidence of his crime.

While Kamion Melton was being interviewed by Evansville police after the discovery of a loaded handgun under the seat of vehicle he had been riding in earlier that day, a detective heard Melton mention Snapchat and proceeded to search for him on the social media app. She then found a video of Melton singing along to music and pulling up his shirt to reveal a handgun butt in his waistband.

The detective recorded Melton’s Snapchat video and informed his interviewers of the handgun, which matched the firearm found in the car. The Snapchat video of Melton was ultimately played for the court, and the detective testified that within the Snapchat app, a video can be taken and uploaded to the user’s Snapchat story where it remains and can be viewed for 24 hours. She also noted that videos or images taken directly on a phone’s camera can be uploaded to Snapchat, but she said she was unable to perform that on her personal device for unknown reasons and didn’t know if that feature was still available at the time of the incident.

After finding the them relevant to the case, the court admitted the detective’s testimony and the video. It concluded the handles of the two guns were “reasonably or very similar” and the jury in Vanderburgh Circuit Court ultimately found Melton guilty of Level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license, sentencing him to four years and 182 days.

Melton argued to the Indiana Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in admitting the Snapchat video pursuant to Evidence Rule 404, and that the video was improperly used to portray him as a violent person who habitually carried a weapon. However, the appellate court found in a memorandum decision that contrary to his claim, the video was not offered as evidence of Melton’s poor character and was not an improper admission of evidence under the rule.“[R]ather, the video was offered as evidence of his possession of the handgun seized from the car,” Senior Judge John T. Sharpnack wrote in Kamion D. Melton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.),18A-CR-1142.

The appellate court further found that the video was relevant to the case in demonstrating Melton’s knowledge and intentional possession of the handgun, and that the probative value of the video outweighed its prejudicial effect.

“Thus, although we acknowledge that all relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial to a defendant in a criminal case, we cannot say the probative value of the video was substantially outweighed by any prejudice to Melton,” Sharpnack continued. “Consequently, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video at trial.”