Bryant Johnson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
71A03-1603-CR-672
Ind. Ct. App. Recl.Nov 22, 2016Background
- In the early morning of Aug. 1, 2015, gunfire near 301 N. Lafayette St., South Bend, struck Stephen Johnson and Justin Sharpe; Sharpe died. Ammunition fragments indicated use of a .38/.357 revolver.
- Bryant Johnson was charged with murder, attempted murder, and battery; case tried to a jury.
- The State presented testimony from Paul Greene, a lead forensic analyst for SST Inc., explaining ShotSpotter acoustic gunshot detection technology and its claimed accuracy (e.g., ~25 meters, improved with more sensors).
- The State sought admission of Exhibit 180, a ShotSpotter forensic report (maps, sensor counts, timing/sharpness data); the court excluded one descriptive page as cumulative but admitted the remainder.
- Johnson objected under Indiana Evidence Rule 702, arguing insufficient foundation/reliability of ShotSpotter (peer review/testing). The trial court admitted the report as assisting jurors and treated reliability concerns as weight issues.
- Jury convicted Johnson; he appealed solely contesting the admission of the ShotSpotter report (Exhibit 180).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by admitting ShotSpotter report (Ex. 180) | State: Exhibit 180 assisted jurors in understanding Greene’s testimony and was properly admitted after foundation testimony | Johnson: Report lacked Rule 702(b) foundation and scientific reliability (insufficient testing/peer review) | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court sufficiently assessed reliability and concerns go to weight not admissibility |
| Whether Rule 702 required further gatekeeping on ShotSpotter reliability | State: Trial testimony explained system operations; liberal Rule 702 standard favors admission of reliable (not conclusive) science | Johnson: Needed rigorous showing of scientific validity before admission | Court: Rule 702 does not impose unduly burdensome tests; trial court may admit and let cross-examination address shakiness |
| If admission was erroneous, whether error was harmless | State: Multiple other ShotSpotter exhibits and abundant eyewitness/physical evidence established shooting location and occurrence | Johnson: Admission of Ex. 180 prejudiced him | Held: Any error harmless — other admissible evidence established shooting; Ex. 180 added no prejudicial information |
| Proper remedy for attack on ShotSpotter evidence | State: Weight/credibility issues for cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence | Johnson: Admission should be reversed due to unreliability | Court: Attacks should be through cross-examination and contrary evidence; reversal not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. State, 784 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (review standard: trial court has broad discretion on admissibility)
- Huffines v. State, 739 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (abuse of discretion defined)
- Doolin v. State, 970 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (expert scientific testimony admissible only if reliability demonstrated to trial court)
- Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011) (Rule 702 liberalizes admissibility; shaky but reliable evidence goes to weight; cross-examination and contrary evidence are proper responses)
- Barnhart v. State, 15 N.E.3d 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (errors in admission/exclusion of evidence are harmless unless they affect substantial rights)