Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A Greene County man’s conviction for identity deception will stand, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed Friday, finding that his conviction is distinguishable from the crime of false informing and that no constitutional violation occurred.
According to court records, in July 2022, Linton City Patrolman Davis Aerne received a dispatch to investigate a call.
When he arrived, a bystander flagged him down and directed him across the highway.
Aerne found the suspect who matched the description he was given, walking on the side of the road. He approached the man and informed him that someone had called and reported that he was stealing.
Brandon Kendall stated the item was at his house and he would return it, and that it belonged to his friend, who had died.
But Kendall told Aerne that his name was Tyler Cliver and that he was born Aug. 3, 1988. He also provided an address that he said was his and began walking away from the scene.
Aerne ran the name he was given and discovered it did not match the date of birth he was provided.
He then ran the date of birth he was given, found a photograph attached to the name “Brandon Kendall” and determined that he was the suspect.
After running Kendall’s name through the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles’ system, the police officer discovered Kendall had an arrest warrant for escape as a Level 5 felony.
In August 2022, the state charged Kendall with identity deception as a Level 6 felony and alleged he was a habitual offender.
Kendall filed a motion to dismiss in March, arguing the identity deception statute, as it was being applied to him, violated the Indiana Constitution’s proportionality clause. The Greene Superior Court subsequently denied the motion.
Kendall later filed a motion in limine to exclude any testimony or evidence related to the bodycam footage, his past arrests and convictions, pending and unrelated criminal charges, and arrest warrants.
The trial court held a hearing at which it stated it was going to allow the warrants, but asked for them to be redacted. It also stated that it would allow the bodycam footage.
In April 2023, the court held a jury trial at which Kendall’s counsel renewed the motion to dismiss, which was denied.
Kendall’s counsel objected to the admission of a certified copy of the arrest warrant for escape, but the court admitted the arrest warrant as well as the bodycam footage.
After the state rested, Kendall’s counsel moved for a direct verdict but was denied.
The jury found Kendall guilty of identity deception as a Level 6 felony, and he admitted to being a habitual offender.
He was sentenced to two years, with his sentence enhanced by four years due to his status as a habitual offender.
Kendall appealed his conviction, first arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting an unredacted arrest warrant.
The Court of Appeals disagreed.
“The record reveals that the State introduced the arrest warrant to show Kendall’s motive. We cannot say that State’s Exhibit 2 was not relevant or that the probative value of the exhibit was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the court. “Further, the probable impact of any error in admitting the arrest warrant, in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect Kendall’s substantial rights.”
The second issue brought on appeal was whether the evidence was sufficient to support Kendall’s conviction.
“Even assuming that the current version of the statute requires that the identifying information coincide with a real person, we note that, when asked what he discovered when he ran the name Tyler Cliver, Patrolman Aerne answered: ‘That the date of birth did not match,’” Brown wrote. “The reasonable inference is that Patrolman Aerne found a real person named Tyler Cliver.”
The COA also noted that Kendall’s argument was limited to whether the statute required that he use the identifying information of a real person.
Also, Kendall didn’t further develop an argument that he did not intend to harm or defraud another person.
Lastly, the court addressed whether the identity deception statute violated the proportionality clause of Article 1, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution.
The court found that the statute governing identity deception included elements not contained in the statute governing false informing.
“Accordingly, we conclude that the crime of false informing, which requires no such intent or use of identifying information, is distinguishable from the crime of identity deception. We do not find a violation of Article 1, Section 16,” Brown wrote.
Judges Elizabeth Tavitas and Peter Foley concurred in Brandon Lee Kendall v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-1473.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.