David John Arndt v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
71A04-1611-CR-2708
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 27, 2017Background
- Surveillance footage showed two people burglarizing Michiana Auto Pros on March 26, 2015; approximately $22,000 in property (including four distinctive 40-inch Nitto Grappler tires mounted on 17-inch rims) was stolen.
- Discount Tire employee Brad Vincent later encountered Hewey Hudson and David Arndt attempting to have two tires remounted; Vincent recognized the stolen tires and contacted law enforcement after they left in a truck with a temporary plate.
- Vincent initially reported the truck’s license plate to police; at trial he could not recall the number until reviewing a police report, but the jury saw a photograph with the plate visible—prompting an objection and a jury admonition to disregard plate testimony.
- Arndt’s co-defendant Dangiz Weed testified that he and Arndt committed the burglary; Arndt’s aunt, Belinda Holcomb, viewed surveillance video and identified Arndt by his gait and appearance.
- The jury convicted Arndt of Level 5 felony burglary; the trial court entered judgment and revoked a previously suspended sentence (probation) after finding Arndt violated probation by committing the burglary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Arndt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Vincent’s testimony identifying the license plate number | Plate evidence was proper and helped link Arndt to the truck | Allowing plate testimony (and the photo showing the plate) was error | Any error harmless: court admonished jury and independent evidence supported conviction |
| Lay witness (Holcomb) identification of defendant from surveillance video | Holcomb’s longtime familiarity made her ID rational and helpful | Her testimony was improper opinion testimony (Evid. R. 701) and unduly prejudicial (Evid. R. 403) given potential bias | Admission was permissible under Rule 701 and not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403; court did not abuse discretion |
| Revocation of probation based on new offense | State proved violation by preponderance via Weed’s testimony, Vincent’s encounter, and Holcomb’s ID | Evidence was weak, inconsistent, and insufficient to meet preponderance standard | Revocation affirmed; evidence was sufficient and court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherry v. State, 971 N.E.2d 726 (Ind. Ct. App.) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- McVey v. State, 863 N.E.2d 434 (Ind. Ct. App.) (harmless error test for erroneously admitted evidence)
- Wickizer v. State, 626 N.E.2d 795 (Ind.) (definition of harmless error for challenged evidence)
- Street v. State, 30 N.E.3d 41 (Ind. Ct. App.) (presumption that juries follow admonitions)
- Goodson v. State, 747 N.E.2d 1181 (Ind. Ct. App.) (admitting lay ID testimony when witness had long familiarity)
- Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614 (Ind.) (standard for probation revocation and burden of proof)
- Tongate v. State, 954 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. Ct. App.) (appellate court will not reweigh credibility)
- Bell v. State, 29 N.E.3d 137 (Ind. Ct. App.) (Rule 403 analysis and trial court discretion)
- Thornton v. State, 792 N.E.2d 94 (Ind. Ct. App.) (appellate review of credibility-based challenges)