Steven Miller v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Jul 22 2015, 9:11 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Scott Knierim Gregory F. Zoeller
The Law Office of Scott Knierim, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Danville, Indiana
Justin F. Roebel
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Steven Miller, July 22, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
32A01-1412-CR-531
v. Appeal from the Hendricks Superior
Court.
The Honorable Stephenie LeMay-
State of Indiana, Luken, Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 32D05-1312-FB-78
Darden, Senior Judge
Statement of the Case
[1] Steven Miller appeals his convictions of two counts of dealing in
methamphetamine both as Class B felonies. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1 (2006).
We affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1412-CR-531 | July 22, 2015 Page 1 of 5
Issue
[2] Miller presents one issue for our review, which we restate as: whether the trial
court erred by admitting certain evidence.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On two occasions in May 2013, Miller sold methamphetamine to a confidential
informant who was working with the Unified Drug Task Force of Hendricks
County. Based on these transactions, the State charged Miller with two counts
of dealing in methamphetamine, both as Class B felonies, and two counts of
possession of methamphetamine, both as Class D felonies, Indiana Code
section 35-48-4-6.1 (2006). Trial by jury commenced on October 28, 2014.
[4] At trial, the State offered Exhibit 3, a video, and Miller’s counsel objected,
stating that the video was never provided to the defense during discovery. In
response, the State argued that discovery had been provided to defense counsel
several months prior to trial. After hearing argument from both sides, the trial
court overruled Miller’s objection and admitted Exhibit 3 into evidence. The
jury viewed Exhibit 3 and subsequently found Miller guilty of all counts.
Judgment of conviction was entered only on the two counts of dealing in
methamphetamine as Class B felonies, and the court sentenced Miller to six
years on each count, to be served concurrent with one another.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1412-CR-531 | July 22, 2015 Page 2 of 5
Discussion and Decision
[5] Miller’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by admitting
Exhibit 3 into evidence over his objection at trial. The trial court is afforded
broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and we will reverse
its ruling only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. Paul v. State, 971
N.E.2d 172, 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). An abuse of discretion occurs when a
decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances
before the court. Id.[6] Further, the trial court has broad discretion in ruling on matters of discovery,
and we will reverse the trial court only when that discretion has been abused.
Grimes v. Crockrom, 947 N.E.2d 452, 454 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). An abuse of
discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or when the trial court has
misinterpreted the law. Id. Due to the fact-sensitive nature of discovery issues,
a trial court’s ruling is cloaked with a strong presumption of correctness. Hill v.
Fitzpatrick, 827 N.E.2d 138, 141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
[7] Charges were filed against Miller on December 13, 2013. On that same day,
the State filed its discovery disclosure with the trial court. The State’s discovery
document contained three sections. Section #3 was entitled
“Documents/Exhibits available for inspection upon request” and contained
subsection f. “Panasonic video of deal TF-13-05-005.” Appellant’s App. p. 18.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1412-CR-531 | July 22, 2015 Page 3 of 5
[8] At trial, the State moved to admit Exhibit 3, which was the Panasonic video
described in section #3, subsection f. of the State’s discovery document.
Miller’s counsel objected to the admission of Exhibit 3, stating that it was never
provided to the defense. However, Miller’s counsel then acknowledged that he
had actually received a Panasonic disc from the State approximately six weeks
prior to trial but explained that he had tried to play it on three different devices,
which all showed that the disc was blank. The State responded that two weeks
prior to trial it offered to play the videos for defense counsel if he could not
view the copies provided to him. Defense counsel agreed that the State had
made this offer and added that he had had discussions with the State prior to
trial because he had difficulty with other discs as well. At this juncture, the
State proposed a short continuance of the trial to give Miller and his counsel an
opportunity to view Exhibit 3 on the State’s laptop. The trial court overruled
Miller’s objection but offered him a short continuance to view the video. Miller
and his counsel declined the trial court’s offer. Exhibit 3 was admitted into
evidence and played for the jury. The video merely showed Miller purchasing
gas at a convenience store.
[9] Defense counsel requested, and the State turned over, the video of Miller
several weeks prior to trial. Later, defense counsel informed the State it was
having difficulty viewing some of the videos, and the State offered to play the
videos for counsel; however, defense counsel did not take the State up on its
offer. Finally, at trial the State proposed and the trial court offered a short
continuance in which Miller and his counsel could view the video on the State’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1412-CR-531 | July 22, 2015 Page 4 of 5
laptop before it was played for the jury. Again, defense counsel declined the
offer. The trial court’s decision is clearly consistent with the logic and effect of
the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, there was no abuse of the trial
court’s discretion.
Conclusion
[10] For the reasons stated, we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting
Exhibit 3 into evidence.
[11] Affirmed.
[12] Vaidik, C.J., and Najam, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1412-CR-531 | July 22, 2015 Page 5 of 5