Billy Guyton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A02-1606-CR-1434

Victim Jorge Gutierrez was robbed at a gas station by two young African-American men who took his phone, wallet, and cigarettes; one displayed a gun and used a racial slur.
After driving home, Gutierrez returned, saw the suspects nearby in different clothes, and reported them to police, giving a description.
Police detained Billy Guyton near an apartment complex where he tried to flee; a pat-down recovered Gutierrez’s cell phone and the same brand of cigarettes.
Gutierrez identified Guyton as one robber in a show-up and a photo array; Guyton was charged with Level 3 felony robbery and Level 5 felony intimidation.
At trial, defense counsel sought to play the “Invisible Gorilla” selective-attention video to the jury to illustrate limits of eyewitness perception; the court refused to admit it for the jury absent accompanying expert testimony.
Guyton was convicted; on appeal he argued the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the video. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to play the "Invisible Gorilla" video for the jury	The State argued exclusion was proper because the video lacked direct relevance, was not tethered to any witness’s testimony, and could not be cross-examined	Guyton argued the video was admissible as demonstrative evidence to illustrate the difficulty of eyewitness identification	Court held exclusion was not an abuse of discretion: the video was untethered to the evidence, not true demonstrative or "silent witness" evidence, and could not be admitted without expert testimony explaining relevance

Williams v. State, 43 N.E.3d 578 (Ind. 2015) (standard for reversing evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion)
Wise v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1192 (Ind. 1999) (definition and use of demonstrative evidence)
Dunlap v. State, 761 N.E.2d 837 (Ind. 2002) (demonstrative evidence admissible if it aids the trier of fact)
Rogers v. State, 902 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (treatment of photos/videos as demonstrative and the "silent witness" theory)
Edwards v. State, 762 N.E.2d 128 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (requirements for admitting "silent witness" evidence)
Gorman v. State, 968 N.E.2d 845 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (discussion of scientific research and safeguards regarding eyewitness identification)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) (constitutional and procedural safeguards limiting undue weight on eyewitness ID)
Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979) (witness verification requirement for demonstrative photos/videos)