COA: Wife’s testimony provided ‘rational basis’ under Indiana Evidence Rule 701

A Chicago man convicted of multiple felonies in Indiana tried to block his wife’s testimony at trial under Indiana Evidence Rule 701, but the Court of Appeals of Indiana held that after 11 years of marriage, the wife would be able to recognize her husband on surveillance video.

Ronald Gee was tried in Lake Superior Court and found guilty of setting fire to the Hammond home of his estranged wife’s boyfriend in April 2018. The wife, Robyn Gee, and her boyfriend, Michael Young, were seriously injured. Young’s mother, Brenda Poole, died in the blaze.

During his trial, the prosecution presented video from the Oasis Smoke Shop, which was near Young’s residence. The video showed a Ford Explorer matching the one Gee was driving parked on the street and the driver in a black jacket exiting the vehicle and walking toward the house. A few minutes later, an orange glow appeared from in the direction of the residence, then the driver returned, extinguishing flames on his jacket before getting into the Explorer and leaving the scene.

When the prosecution asked Robyn Gee to identify the individual in the video, Gee objected on the basis of Indiana Evidence Rule 701. The rule limits the testimony of a nonexpert witness to one that is rationally based on the witness’s perception and that is helpful to understanding the testimony or determination of fact.

The prosecutor responded that as Gee’s wife, Robyn Gee had “personal experience seeing [Gee] many times, and so she can say who she sees in the video[.]” The trial court overruled the objection.

Gee was subsequently found guilty by a jury of murder, Level 2 felony arson resulting in serious bodily injury and Level 3 felony arson resulting in bodily injury. He was sentenced to an aggregate of 55 years.

On appeal, he argued the trial court abused its discretion in allowing his wife to identify him in the video. However, the Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the trial court in Ronald Alan Gee v. State of Indiana, 21A-CR-2092.

In particular, the appellate panel pointed to Gibson v. State, 709 N.E.2d 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), where a lay opinion of a police officer familiar with the defendant was deemed admissible under Rule 701 as being helpful to the jury in reaching a decision about the identification of the person depicted in the surveillance video.

The Court of Appeals found Robyn Gee had a stronger connection to her husband than the police officer had to the defendant in Gibson.

“Here, our review of the evidence reveals that Robyn had been married to Gee for eleven years,” Judge Rudolph Pyle III wrote for the appellate court. “Robyn recognized Gee’s body type, his clothing, and the way that he swooped his shoulders down and looked down as he walked away from the Explorer. … As a result, we conclude that her testimony provided an adequate foundation demonstrating the rational basis for identifying Gee.”