M.T v. v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 461
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Teen appellant M.T.V. was accused in juvenile court of conspiring with classmate B.E. to commit a school shooting/kill a student (J.R.), with April 20, 2018 identified as the planned date.
- Schoolmate overheard M.T.V. at lunch say he and B.E. would bring guns to school, had a target list, and J.R. was first; school counselors and police investigated.
- Seymour Police obtained Facebook conversation records between M.T.V. and B.E.; the State sought to admit those records at the fact-finding hearing.
- The petition originally alleged conspiracy to commit murder; it was amended and the juvenile court ultimately entered a true finding only as to Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Battery.
- At the hearing the court admitted the Facebook records over M.T.V.’s objections (authentication and hearsay), and the court found sufficient independent evidence of a conspiracy (lunchroom statement, admissions to police, and drawings found in B.E.’s binder).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (M.T.V.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of Facebook records | Records were authenticated by (1) appellant’s admission to police he conversed on Facebook with B.E., (2) content of messages matching those admissions, (3) Facebook custodian affidavit and officer’s routine retrieval procedure | Records lacked sufficient foundation/authentication and should be excluded; business-records argument also raised but not relied on | Court: No abuse of discretion; reasonable probability the records were what the State claimed and authentication sufficed (Evid. R. 901) |
| Admissibility of coconspirator statements (hearsay) | B.E.’s out-of-court statements in Facebook conversations are non-hearsay under Evid. R. 801(d)(2)(E) because (a) there was independent evidence of a conspiracy and (b) statements were in furtherance of the conspiracy | B.E.’s statements are inadmissible hearsay because the State relied on those statements without independent evidence proving a conspiracy | Court: No abuse of discretion; independent evidence (lunchroom statement, appellant’s admissions, drawings/overt acts) supports admissibility of B.E.’s statements as coconspirator statements |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit aggravated battery | Combined evidence (Facebook messages, lunchroom admission, admissions to police, drawings showing target/seating) established agreement and overt act in furtherance of conspiracy | Evidence was fantasy/banter among teens and insufficient to prove a real agreement or overt act | Court: Evidence sufficient; reasonable inferences support finding of agreement and overt act, so adjudication affirmed |
| Scope/weight of social-media evidence | Social-media content corroborated by other evidence; admissible and probative | Social-media posts were unreliable and should be discounted | Court: Admitted and relied upon social-media content; any weaknesses affect weight, not admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- N.L. v. State, 989 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. 2013) (juvenile fact-finding hearings treated like criminal trials for evidentiary rules)
- Guilmette v. State, 14 N.E.3d 38 (Ind. 2014) (standard of review for admission of evidence: abuse of discretion)
- Pavlovich v. State, 6 N.E.3d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (authentication requires reasonable probability, not absolute proof)
- Wilson v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (use of distinctive account content to authenticate social-media posts)
- Fry v. State, 885 N.E.2d 742 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (authentication weaknesses go to weight, not admissibility)
- Lander v. State, 762 N.E.2d 1208 (Ind. 2002) (coconspirator statement admissible only after independent evidence of conspiracy is introduced)
- Mayhew v. State, 537 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind. 1989) (a defendant’s own admissions can supply independent evidence to admit coconspirator statements)
- Chambers v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 1988) (conspiratorial intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
- Owens v. State, 929 N.E.2d 754 (Ind. 2010) (overt act for conspiracy need not be a substantial step as in attempt)