154 N.E.3d 854
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- On December 23, 2017 Flowers shot Deandre Voss in the face at the Villages of Hanna apartment complex; Voss died shortly thereafter. Witness Javon Rolan saw the confrontation and later identified Flowers as the shooter.
- Security‑system recordings from multiple cameras captured the confrontation, the shooting (in frames with 1.5–2s gaps), and Flowers running through the complex, making a hand gesture, discarding a cigarette (DNA matched), getting into and later driving his van; Sergeant Strausborger (security director) accessed and preserved the footage.
- Flowers initially told Rolan to lie and say he hadn’t seen anything; Rolan later told police after being arrested for other charges that he had seen Flowers shoot Voss.
- Flowers was charged with murder and a firearm enhancement in April 2018; trial dates were set and continued at the State’s and then defense’s requests; trial occurred December 2018 and a jury convicted Flowers of murder and the firearm enhancement.
- At sentencing the court found Flowers’ extensive multi‑state criminal history an aggravator, found no mitigation, imposed 65 years for murder plus a 20‑year firearm enhancement (85 years total), and ordered $5,000 restitution to the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute (ICJI) for funeral expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to continue (speedy‑trial) | State: needed continuance due to prosecutor scheduling and prep for another trial | Flowers: trial court violated his right to a speedy trial by continuing dates after his pro se letters | Court: no abuse; defendant was represented so communications must go through counsel; continuation not reversible; unraised arguments waived |
| Admission of video exhibits (16–19) | State: exhibits are admissible under the "silent witness" theory with Sergeant Strausborger’s authentication | Flowers: exhibits lacked foundation/authenticity; sergeant’s later interpretive testimony improperly opined on contents/ultimate issue | Court: exhibits admissible under silent‑witness (sufficient foundation); sergeant’s testimony permitted because defense opened the door on cross |
| Sergeant Strausborger’s interpretive testimony | State: testimony was responsive and within scope after defense cross raised gaps/limitations | Flowers: testimony went beyond best evidence and impermissibly opined on guilt | Held: court allowed the testimony; any objection was waived or cured because defense opened the door |
| Restitution to ICJI ($5,000) | State: ICJI paid funeral/transportation assistance; PSI and confirmation support $5,000 claim | Flowers: evidence at sentencing insufficient to support restitution order | Court: $5,000 restitution supported by PSI, restitution form, and confirmation from ICJI; no abuse of discretion |
| Sentence appropriateness (85 years) | State: nature (face shot of unarmed victim, flight, celebratory gestures, post‑offense concealment) and character (extensive, escalating criminal history) justify sentence | Flowers: sentence is inappropriate given nature/character | Court: sentence not inappropriate under App. R. 7(B); affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. State, 773 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (defendant represented by counsel speaks to the court through counsel; pro se filings by represented defendant not controlling)
- Underwood v. State, 722 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. 2000) (trial court need not respond to both defendant and counsel; prohibits hybrid representation)
- McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554 (Ind. 2018) (framework for admitting surveillance as substantive "silent witness" evidence; foundation requirements)
- Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014) (authenticating witness need not testify to absolute certainty; identifying testimony of scene may suffice)
- Palilonis v. State, 970 N.E.2d 713 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve evidentiary issues on appeal)
- Washington v. State, 808 N.E.2d 617 (Ind. 2004) (issues not presented to trial court are generally waived on appeal)
- Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126 (Ind. 2009) (a defendant may "open the door" to otherwise inadmissible evidence by questioning that leaves a misleading impression)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (standards for appellate review under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B))
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (factors for assessing whether a sentence is inappropriate: nature of offense and character of offender)