Brice Price v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 14 2020, 8:43 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Valerie K. Boots Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Christopher M. Kunz Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana Catherine E. Brizzi
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Brice Price, December 14, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-567
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa F. Borges,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
The Honorable Anne Flannely,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G04-1901-F4-2026
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-567 | December 14, 2020 Page 1 of 8
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Brice Price (Price), appeals his conviction for carrying a
handgun without a license, a Level 4 felony, Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5(c).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Price raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court
abused its discretion in admitting two duplicate recordings of surveillance
footage into evidence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On January 13, 2019, a resident of Motel 67 observed a man with a gun
crouching outside of his window in the middle of the night and called the
motel’s manager, Amanda Lanum (Lanum). The motel had a security system
consisting of twenty-three cameras spread over the premises, and those cameras
fed into a large monitor. Lanum immediately called 9-1-1 and pulled up the
surveillance camera vidoe and she saw a man standing at the rear corner of the
motel building on top of a cart holding what appeared to be a handgun.
[5] Within two minutes of receiving the dispatch report, Officer Adam Hazelwood
(Officer Hazelwood) and Officer Aaron Clegg (Officer Clegg) of the Lawrence
Police Department arrived at the scene. When the police arrived, Lanum
watched the man throw the handgun down on the side of the cart and then
walk out from behind the building on the surveillance footage. The officers
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-567 | December 14, 2020 Page 2 of 8
walked to the back of the building and found a man who was later identified as
Price. The officers ordered Price to get down on the ground, and Price
complied. As Price was getting down on the ground he stated, “thank God.
Someone was chasing me.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 23). Officer
Hazelwood read Price his Miranda warning at which time Price denied having a
gun because he was a “serious violent felon.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 27).
Officer Hazelwood went to check if there was another person at the back of the
building, but he was unable to find anyone.
[6] Lanum showed the officers the video footage of Price. Because Lanum did not
know how to directly copy the surveillance footage onto a blank disc, one of the
officers used his phone to record two short videos of the footage playing on the
surveillance monitor. One of them showed Price holding a gun and him
placing the gun on the ground underneath a cart and walking away. Thereafter,
Lanum directed the officers to where Price had dropped the gun, and Officer
Clegg located a black .40 caliber Smith and Wesson handgun beside the cart on
which Price had been standing.
[7] On January 27, 2019, the State filed an Information, charging Price with
unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony,
and carrying a handgun without a license, a Level 5 felony. On January 14,
2020, the State moved to dismiss the Level 5 felony.
[8] On January 16, 2020, a bifurcated jury trial was held. During the first phase of
Price’s trial, Lanum testified that she saw a man, who was later identified as
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-567 | December 14, 2020 Page 3 of 8
Price, holding a gun at the back of the motel building, and she additionally
stated that when the police arrived, Price threw the gun on the ground. The
State also, among other evidence, moved to have the officers’ cellphone
recordings of the video surveillance admitted into evidence. Price objected, and
argued, in part, that the cellphone video clips were not a complete recording of
the surveillance footage taken on the night Price committed the offense. In
response, the State argued that Lanum watched the motel’s surveillance “in real
time” and the cellphone video clips were a “fair and accurate depiction of what
[Lanum] saw.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 108). At the close of the evidence, the jury
found Price guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm. During the second
phase of his trial, Price stipulated to being a serious violent felon and waived his
right to a jury trial on that issue. On February 11, 2020, the trial court
conducted a sentencing hearing and sentenced Price to eight years, with five
years executed and three years suspended.
[9] Price now appeals. Additional information will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[10] Price argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into
evidence two duplicate recorded videos of the motel’s surveillance footage.
[11] When ruling on the admissibility of evidence, the trial court is afforded broad
discretion, and we will only reverse the ruling upon a showing of abuse of
discretion. Gibson v. State, 733 N.E.2d 945, 951 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). An abuse
of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-567 | December 14, 2020 Page 4 of 8
facts and circumstances before the court. Id. We consider the evidence most
favorable to the trial court’s ruling and any uncontradicted evidence to the
contrary to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the ruling.
Id.[12] Generally, “[a]n original writing, recording, or photograph is required to prove
its content” unless the Rules of Evidence or a statute provide otherwise. Ind.
Evidence Rule 1002. However, “[a] duplicate is admissible to the same extent
as an original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s
authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.” Evid.
R. 1003. Moreover, “[a]n original is not required and other evidence” of a
recording’s contents may be admitted into evidence if:
(a) all originals are lost or destroyed, and not by the proponent
acting in bad faith;
(b) an original cannot be obtained by any available judicial
process;
(c) the party against whom the original would be offered had
control of the original; was at that time put on notice, by
pleadings or otherwise, that the original would be a subject of
proof at the trial or hearing; and fails to produce it at the trial or
hearing; or
(d) the writing, recording, or photograph is not closely related to
a controlling issue.
Evid. R. 1004.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-567 | December 14, 2020 Page 5 of 8
[13] On appeal, Price does not argue that a genuine question was raised as to the
authenticity of the original surveillance footage, but only that it was unfair to
admit the cellphone duplicate recordings of the surveillance footage because the
videos were not a complete representation of the motel’s surveillance footage.
[14] The State argues that it was not necessary to copy and submit the entirety of the
motel’s surveillance footage. In Rogers v. State, 902 N.E.2d 871, 873 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2009), the trial court convicted Rogers of theft based on surveillance
camera footage that showed Rogers stealing from a CVS. Although that CVS
had sixteen security cameras, only one camera focused on the area where the
theft occurred. Id. at 877. The State submitted certain relevant portions of the
surveillance footage from this camera, but it did not submit other surveillance
footage from the other cameras. Id. The CVS supervisor testified that the
redacted duplicates were “fair and accurate” portrayals of the originals, and we
held that it was not unfair to admit these duplicates under the circumstances.
Id.[15] Here, the State provided an explanation for why the original surveillance
footage could not be produced. Lanum testified that she did not know how to
reproduce the surveillance video on a DVD, and that prompted one of the
officers to record the surveillance footage on his cellphone. Similar to Rogers,
although only certain portions of the available surveillance footage were
provided, Lanum testified that the cellphone recordings, which were a redacted
version of the surveillance footage, were “fair and accurate representations” of
the surveillance feed that she was watching on the night in question. (Tr. Vol.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-567 | December 14, 2020 Page 6 of 8
II, p. 157). Similar to Rogers, it was therefore not necessary to submit the
entirety of the additional irrelevant surveillance footage recorded on the motel’s
twenty-three security cameras for the duplicate recordings to be admissible.
Rogers, 902 N.E. 2d at 877.
[16] Price also argues that the cellphone recordings did not contain the time that the
original surveillance footage was captured, and that this information was
“crucially relevant.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 13). Despite the lack of timestamps on
the recorded footage, Lanum testified that after she received a call from one of
the residents that there was a man with a gun crouching outside his window,
Lanum called the police and pulled up the security camera for the specific area.
She saw a man standing at the rear corner of the motel building on top of a cart
holding what appeared to be a handgun. Additionally, the officers testified that
they arrived at the motel within two minutes of receiving the dispatch report
and that they turned on their body cameras as soon as they arrived. Upon
arrival, the officers went directly to the southern corner of the motel and
immediately confronted Price. Lanum also testified that, in real time, she
personally observed Price hide the gun and walk directly into the officer’s path
on the live video feed. Notwithstanding the fact that the cellphone recordings
of the motel’s surveillance footage lacked a timestamp, there was evidence
establishing that the man in the cellphone recordings was Price. Based on the
foregoing, we therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting the cellphone recordings.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-567 | December 14, 2020 Page 7 of 8
CONCLUSION
[17] In light of the foregoing, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in admitting the cellphone recordings of the motel’s surveillance footage.
[18] Affirmed.
[19] Najam, J. and Crone, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-567 | December 14, 2020 Page 8 of 8