Jeremy C. Watkins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 71A04-1706-CR-1405

On Nov. 9, 2016 Mishawaka police arrested Jeremy C. Watkins at a friend’s home; consent was given to search the home and a handgun was found under the mattress in the bedroom.
The firearm was submitted for prints; one fingerprint from the ammunition clip matched Watkins’s right thumb.
Watkins was charged with Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm; jury trial began April 25, 2017.
The State introduced two exhibits (an original and an enlargement) of the same Facebook photograph showing Watkins holding a firearm; Watkins objected.
Detective Will testified he compared the recovered gun to the gun in the photograph and identified matching markings; the photograph had been uploaded 18 days before the offense (Watkins disputed timing and said the photo was older and showed a BB gun).
The jury convicted Watkins; he was sentenced to six years (three executed, three suspended). The Court of Appeals affirmed admission of the photographs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility — relevance of Facebook photo	Photo is relevant because it can be compared to the recovered gun to show ownership/possession	Photo is not relevant; unlike Wilson, the photo might not reliably link the weapon to the crime	Admissible: photo was relevant because police introduced the recovered gun and Detective Will testified to matching features
Admissibility — Rule 403 prejudice vs. probative value	Probative value of linking gun to Watkins outweighs any prejudice	Photo is prejudicial (angry expression, alleged gang sign) and should be excluded under Rule 403	Admissible: trial court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed potential unfair prejudice

Snow v. State, 77 N.E.3d 173 (Ind. 2017) (relevance standard low; exclude under Rule 403 when risks substantially outweigh relevance)
Ewing v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1221 (Ind. 1999) (photographs of matters described in testimony are generally admissible)
McQueen v. State, 711 N.E.2d 503 (Ind. 1999) (photographic evidence decisions committed to trial court discretion)
Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670 (Ind. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. 2002) (photograph of defendant with gun excluded where no weapon was introduced and possession was remote in time)
Ferrell v. State, 746 N.E.2d 48 (Ind. 2001) (appellate review considers evidence most favorable to verdict; credibility for jury)
Burns v. State, 59 N.E.3d 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (Rule 403 balancing is discretionary and for the trial court)