936 N.E.2d 831
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- Arlton, an ophthalmology patient, sues Dr. Schraut and Lafayette Retina Clinic for malpractice due to a laser surgery resulting in a central wedge-shaped blind spot.
- Angiograms from September–November 2002 were admitted in digital form and in printed enlargements; Arlton proposed additional enlarged copies he printed himself.
- The trial court excluded Arlton's enlarged printouts, despite evidence they were accurate enlargements of admitted digital images.
- During trial, the jury viewed some angiograms on a screen; Arlton sought jury access to the digital CD-ROM images during deliberations.
- Arlton tendered a jury instruction allowing open-court viewing of digital images during deliberations; the court did not give it.
- The jury returned a verdict for the medical providers; Arlton appeals on evidentiary access and jury instruction issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of enlarged exhibits | Enlargements were duplicates of admitted images; authentic and unaltered. | Enlargements lacked proper foundation and expertise for interpretation. | Abuse of discretion; enlarged angiograms should have been admitted. |
| Access to digital evidence during deliberations | Digital images would aid deliberation and should be accessible; no prejudice. | Jurors lack skill to view digital data; risk of misuse. | Trial court erred by denying access; jurors should be able to view digital evidence. |
| Tendered jury instruction on accessing digital images | Correct law; allowed to review digital images in court if desired. | No explicit rule granting access; risk of misapplication. | Trial court abused discretion by refusing instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Gordon, 871 N.E.2d 287 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (evidentiary abuse of discretion standard)
- Howard v. State, 342 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. 1976) (photographic enlargements admissible as part of original evidence)
- Labelle v. State, 550 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. 1990) (authentication of x-ray photographs by witness foundation)
- Goodrich v. Ind. Mich. Power Co., 783 N.E.2d 793 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (three-factor test for admitting exhibits to jury; aid/prejudice/misuse)
- Stokes v. State, 801 N.E.2d 1263 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (jury access to video evidence; timing and monitoring considerations)
- Sturma v. State, 683 N.E.2d 610 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997) (open-court viewing of videotape after deliberations)
- Rose v. United States, 522 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2008) (jury access to digital evidence; media format practicalities)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright, 774 N.E.2d 891 (Ind. 2002) (three-part test for evaluating tendered jury instructions)