Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A lower court correctly allowed security camera footage to be entered into evidence and did not err in denying a defendant’s requested jury instruction at his trial, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Wednesday.
In the spring of 2021, Detective Chase Patton of the Wayne County Drug Task Force received three anonymous tips about Alexander Irwin dealing drugs out of his apartment in Richmond.
As a result, Patton began conducting surveillance on the apartment.
At the time, Kacey Lawrence was dating Irwin and living with him at the apartment.
In May 2021, Patton observed Lawrence leave the apartment and get into a vehicle with an individual he recognized from past drug investigations, according to court records.
Since Patton was conducting surveillance in an unmarked vehicle, he called a patrol officer to follow Lawrence and that officer conducted a traffic stop.
The officer found Lawrence with a bag of methamphetamine, and Lawrence told law enforcement that Irwin was dealing drugs out of the apartment.
Patton arrested Lawrence for possession of methamphetamine.
During the three weeks Patton conducted surveillance on the apartment, he observed an “uncommon amount of visitors” coming in and out of the back entrance.
On two occasions after Lawrence’s arrest, Patton asked patrol officers to follow the vehicles of visitors who he observed leave the apartment.
In both instances, officers conducted a traffic stop and found the passengers to be in possession of methamphetamine.
Later, Patton applied for a search warrant on the apartment to search for and seize illegal drugs.
On June 2, 2021, law enforcement executed the search warrant.
The officers found Irwin on the back porch of the apartment with $4,500 in cash and three bags of narcotics on his person.
Law enforcement found Lawrence inside the apartment and began questioning her. Lawrence told police where firearms and narcotics could be located.
In the apartment, officers found narcotics, methamphetamine, firearms, syringes, baggies, and a digital scale. Irwin was arrested and charged with dealing in cocaine, a Level 2 felony; dealing in a narcotic drug, a Level 2 felony; and dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 2 felony.
At trial in Wayne Superior Court, prior to closing arguments, Irwin requested the trial court to instruct the jury that Lawrence took the witness stand and invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege.
The court denied the proposed instruction.
The jury found Irwin guilty as charged.
Irwin appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting security camera footage taken outside of his apartment without proper authentication.
He also argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to give Irwin’s requested jury instruction.
The appeals court affirmed, finding the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.
Judge Paul Felix wrote the opinion for the appellate court.
The state offered the security footage under the silent-witness theory, Felix noted.
Videos and photographs are often offered as demonstrative evidence, but, under that theory, they are offered as substantive evidence.
“Surveillance video footage may be properly authenticated and admissible under the silent witness theory when the proponent presents ‘testimony from someone with knowledge on the security system that produced the video or image, on the integrity of the system’s process, and on whether [the] video or image was altered,’” Felix wrote, citing Stott v. State, 174 N.E.3d 236, 246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021).
Felix wrote that the state provided the foundation to demonstrate the security footage was authentic and unaltered.
The appellate court also rejected Irwin’s argument that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a complete defense when it rejected his proffered jury instruction.
According to Felix, Irwin intended for the jury to infer Lawrence’s culpability in furtherance of his theory that the drugs in the apartment belonged to Lawrence.
“The purpose of this instruction conflicts with the protection afforded to privilege in our rules of evidence,” Felix wrote.
Felix added that Irwin relied on the appellate court’s decision in Martin v. State, 179 N.E.3d 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) for his claim that “the trial court was not permitted to deny” his requested jury instruction, but his argument was unpersuasive.
Judge L. Mark Bailey concurred with a separate opinion.
Judge Melissa May concurred in result with a separate opinion.
May wrote that she disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that Irwin waived his argument regarding admission of the security footage by advancing a different argument on appeal than he made before the trial court.
She also disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that “the State provided sufficient evidence to authenticate the Security Footage.”
“However, I do not believe we should reverse Irwin’s convictions because of the substantial other evidence of Irwin’s guilt. Therefore, I respectfully concur in result,” May wrote.
The case is Alexander R. Irwin v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-501.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.