Ashley N. McFall v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 71
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In October 2013 police executed a search warrant at a house where McFall rented a room and found numerous items consistent with methamphetamine manufacturing in her bedroom and the detached garage.
- Two short videos (and stills) dated October 12, taken on a private individual’s cell phone (identified as "Javier"), showed McFall at the garage workbench; Javier showed the videos to Detective Whitmyer on October 14.
- Detective Whitmyer copied the videos from Javier’s phone to a DVD and introduced the videos and stills at trial; Javier (the confidential source) did not testify and was not produced at trial.
- The trial court admitted the videos and still photos over McFall’s authentication objection under Ind. Evidence Rule 901 and the silent-witness theory.
- McFall testified and identified herself in the videos, admitted meth was being manufactured that night but claimed Javier was the "cook" and she was an addict.
- A jury convicted McFall of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine (manufacturing) within 1,000 feet of a youth program center; the trial court imposed a 40-year aggregate sentence (10 years executed, 20 years home detention, 10 years suspended).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of cell-phone videos/stills | State: authenticated under Rule 901 and silent-witness theory | McFall: not properly authenticated because Javier did not testify and police did not control recording process | Videos lacked required silent-witness foundation at time of admission, but any error was harmless because McFall later identified and adopted the recordings at trial |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove manufacturing | State: physical items, pop-bottle at shared storage, and videos show McFall manufacturing meth | McFall: items could indicate personal use only and she admitted addiction; she was not shown to be more than a user | Evidence sufficient: items in her bedroom/garage plus her identification in the videos permitted a reasonable jury to find she knowingly manufactured meth |
| Appropriateness of 40-year sentence | State: aggravating factors justified above-advisory sentence | McFall: first felony, significant rehabilitation while incarcerated; 40 years inappropriate | Court revises sentence to advisory 30 years; imposes 14 years executed (10 DOC, 4 home detention) and 16 years suspended with substance-abuse treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- Dausch v. State, 616 N.E.2d 13 (Ind. 1993) (later testimony can cure an earlier foundational defect in admissibility)
- Wise v. State, 26 N.E.3d 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (requirements for authenticating automatic-camera images under silent-witness theory)
- Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947 (Ind. 2016) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. 2014) (appellate authority under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) to revise sentences)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (principles for Rule 7(B) review — focus on outliers and guiding principles)
- Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (consideration of suspended time and other sentencing tools in appropriateness review)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)