Royce Love v. State
73 N.E.3d 693
| Ind. | 2017Background
- Police pursued Royce Love after traffic violations; spike strips stopped his van in an alley and officers ordered him out.
- Officers testified Love ignored commands, was tased twice, a K-9 bit his forearm, and Love struck, squeezed, and bit the dog; five officers testified to uncooperative, forcible resistance.
- Love testified he complied, lay face-down, was tased and bitten, and only tried to protect himself from the dog.
- Two in-car/DVD videos showing the pursuit and arrest were admitted and played for the jury; the video evidence was dark, incomplete for key moments, and subject to differing interpretations.
- A jury convicted Love of battery on a law enforcement animal and resisting law enforcement (both Class A misdemeanors); the Court of Appeals reversed based on its reading of the video; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Love) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for battery of a law enforcement animal and resisting law enforcement | Officer testimony and physical evidence proved Love knowingly mistreated the K-9 and forcibly resisted officers | Video shows Love cooperated immediately; he acted in self-defense against excessive force and the dog | Affirmed: evidence sufficient; convictions upheld |
| Proper standard of appellate review of video evidence in sufficiency cases | Give deferential review to trial-court findings; consider video like other evidence | Video can objectively contradict officer testimony and should be reviewed to overturn credibility-based findings | Indiana adopts deferential standard with a narrow failsafe: defer unless video indisputably contradicts trial findings |
| What constitutes an "indisputable" video contradiction | N/A (legal standard issue) | N/A | Video indisputably contradicts trial findings only when no reasonable person could view it and reach a different conclusion; courts must assess quality, angle, lighting, completeness, audio, and interpretability |
| Whether the video in this case indisputably contradicted police testimony | N/A | Video shows immediate compliance, so police testimony is contradicted | No: the video was dark and incomplete; it did not indisputably contradict officer testimony, so appellate court must defer to trial factfinder |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 362 (Ind. 2014) (appellate courts may review video evidence but must apply traditional deferential sufficiency review)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (same videotape can support divergent reasonable interpretations on force and justification)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (videotape that indisputably contradicts testimony may justify departing from usual deference)
- State v. Houghton, 384 S.W.3d 441 (Tex. App. 2012) (articulating principle of deferring to trial court unless recording indisputably contradicts findings)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review: affirm unless no reasonable fact-finder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive-force claims judged by objective "reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment)
- Wiggins v. Florida Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 209 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 2017) (recognizing video can correct mistaken officer recollection and may override deference in narrow circumstances)