101 N.E.3d 865
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Early morning Jan. 10, 2015: masked men armed with guns forced entry into Victor Villalobos’s home; victims Villalobos and Julian Altatenco were zip-tied, beaten, and money taken.
- Police arrived; shots were fired at officers. Andre Taylor (who gave a false name at arrest) was shot and captured in the backyard; three co-defendants were identified and another phone recovered in the yard.
- Officers seized Taylor’s phone at the hospital; the phone was passcode-locked so initial techs could only show call/text metadata between Taylor and co-defendant Donte Jones.
- Detective Grant Melton performed a “Chip-Off” procedure (desoldering the memory chip) to extract six text message contents from Taylor’s phone; Melton testified about his training and experience with the technique.
- Taylor was convicted of Level 2 burglary, Level 3 armed robbery, and two counts of Level 3 criminal confinement; he pled guilty to habitual offender enhancement. He appealed, arguing (1) Chip-Off evidence was inadmissible and (2) certain convictions violate double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Chip-Off evidence / Melton’s testimony | Melton’s specialized technical training and widespread forensic use of Chip-Off make his testimony admissible under Evidence Rule 702(a); any weaknesses go to weight | Chip-Off is scientific expert evidence; Melton failed to establish reliability under Rule 702(b) (peer review, error rate, standards) | Court: Melton’s testimony was technical/specialized (Rule 702(a)) not scientific; admission not an abuse of discretion; alternatively any error was harmless given overwhelming independent evidence |
| Double jeopardy for multiple convictions (burglary, robbery, confinement) | Burglary and robbery convictions may coexist; confinement convictions only valid if confinement exceeded what was necessary to commit robbery | Taylor: convictions for burglary+robbery and for robbery+confinement violate double jeopardy because offenses overlap | Court: burglary and robbery convictions stand; both confinement convictions vacated because confinement was coextensive with robbery and not extended beyond it |
Key Cases Cited
- Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Manuilov, 742 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2001) (Evidence Rule 702 adopted to liberalize admission of reliable scientific evidence)
- State v. Pratt, 128 A.3d 883 (Vt. 2015) (forensic extraction testimony may be technical; expert need not explain underlying programming/math)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (actual-evidence test for Indiana double jeopardy)
- Wethington v. State, 560 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 1990) (vacating confinement conviction when confinement is coextensive with robbery)
- Swaynie v. State, 762 N.E.2d 112 (Ind. 2002) (burglary and the intended underlying felony may both be convicted)