Michael A. Huff v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 15 2020, 8:21 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kay A. Beehler Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Terre Haute, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Caroline G. Templeton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael A. Huff, April 15, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2028
v.
Appeal from the Pulaski Superior
Court
State of Indiana,
The Honorable Crystal A. Kocher,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
66D01-1901-F5-1
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 1 of 16
[1] Michael A. Huff appeals his conviction for possessing material capable of
causing bodily injury by an inmate as a level 5 felony and claims the trial court
abused its discretion in admitting evidence and the evidence is insufficient to
sustain his conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In January 2019, Huff was an inmate in the Pulaski County Jail. On January
14 or 15, 2019, Pulaski County Sheriff’s Sergeant of Corrections Christopher
McAninch conducted a C.A.B. hearing, which is “basically just a committee
hearing board for disciplinary,” with Huff in a cell for attorney visitation.
Transcript Volume II at 141. Sergeant McAninch wore a body camera during
the hearing in order to record Huff’s “testimony and everything else for [the]
C.A.B. hearing.” Id. at 144.
[3] After concluding the hearing, Sergeant McAninch called the pod control officer
to unlock the door. The locking mechanism for the door slid open, and Huff
proceeded to open the door quickly and then closed the door quickly in front of
Sergeant McAninch, locking him inside the visitation room.
[4] Huff moved down the hallway past the dispatch center. Sergeant McAninch
tried to radio to unlock the door and observed an officer hurry to the control
panel to unlock the door. He walked out of the room and yelled Huff’s name.
Huff stopped, hesitated for a second, and then started walking towards him.
Sergeant McAninch placed Huff into a holding cell, and Huff kicked the door
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 2 of 16
after being placed inside. Huff “started to attempt to tear his mat apart” and
“stuff things in the toilet.” Id. at 148.
[5] Sergeant McAninch went to Huff’s old cell and noticed his sleeping mat was
“very heavy.” Id. at 149. After a metal detector alerted on the mat, Sergeant
McAninch noticed the mat was hand sewn with white string material, cut open
the mat, and discovered what looked like the blackened end of a paperclip. The
officers decided to use a metal detector on the remainder of Huff’s belongings.
Sergeant McAninch discovered an envelope that was “sealed pretty tight” with
the name Braden Huff on it and felt a stiff object in the envelope that would not
bend as easily as paper. Id. at 152. He opened the envelope and discovered
handwritten letters dated November 2018 from a female inmate located in the
facility, a piece of toilet paper, and a razor blade. Sergeant McAninch
completed a contraband confiscation form and reviewed the form with Huff.
[6] On January 17, 2019, the State charged Huff with possessing material capable
of causing bodily injury by an inmate as a level 5 felony. Huff waived his right
to counsel. At the jury trial, when asked how he was acquainted with Huff,
Sergeant McAninch answered without objection: “[T]hrough several incidences
inside the jail . . . . From when I first started here, um, several incidences in
which I was personally involved in, um, through physical incidences with him,
um, dealing with his C.A.B. hearings from other staff in which he has had
disciplinary problems with.” Id. at 140. Sergeant McAninch also testified
without objection: “At the time, he was actually serving a disciplinary sanction
in our disciplinary block.” Id. at 143.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 3 of 16
[7] During Sergeant McAninch’s testimony, the prosecutor asked to display the
first video from the bodycam. Huff objected and asserted the video was not
relevant to the facts of the charge. The court overruled the objection, found that
“it is relevant based on the fact that it is foundation for the offense that
occurred,” and marked the disc containing the bodycam footage as State’s
Exhibit 1. Id. at 146. The first video consisted of a seventy-three second clip
showing the end of the C.A.B. hearing in which Huff exited the room, closed
the door, walked away from Sergeant McAninch, and stated he was going back
to the block in a reasonable manner. The video includes an abrupt sound after
Huff was placed in a holding cell and a statement by Sergeant McAninch telling
him to quit hitting the door.
[8] The prosecutor later asked to publish the second video showing the search of
the envelope. When the court asked Huff if he had any objection to the
publication of the second video, Huff answered in the negative. The court
published the second video on State’s Exhibit 1 to the jury. This 125-second
video showed the wanding of the envelope by a metal detector and Sergeant
McAninch feeling and opening the envelope.
[9] Sergeant McAninch testified that possessing razors constitutes a “very high
security risk, as well as a safety concern for both inmates and staff.” Id. at 157.
When asked the reason, he answered:
There is [sic] multiple concerns when it comes into it, whether it
be dangerous because it could be easily affixed to a handle,
whether you take a toothbrush, get it hot enough to where the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 4 of 16
plastic becomes moldy, it can be affixed in there. It can be
attached to pencils, and the blade is, now has a longer handle on
it. It could be used more as a slashing tool, um, as well as some
inmates could potentially use it for a suicide attempt.
Id. at 158.
[10] Without objection, the court admitted a third video on State’s Exhibit 1
containing the video of the review of the contraband confiscation form. In the
five-minute video, Sergeant McAninch reviewed the form with Huff and
indicated he found a paperclip in the sleeping mat and a razor blade in an
envelope. Huff asked about his pillow, and Sergeant McAninch indicated it
was destroyed because it was handsewn on the top and was alerting on the
metal detector and stated, “I already found a paperclip in the mat and then I’m
finding razorblades in the other stuff.” State’s Exhibit 1. Huff stated: “There
shouldn’t have been no razorblades in no other stuff.” Id. Huff also stated that
the envelope had been sealed for months. The video revealed Huff stating there
was no reason to take the mail and the envelope and Sergeant McAninch
stating it was all seized for evidence and this was going to be an ongoing
investigation.
[11] On cross-examination, Huff asked if there had ever been a report of him
intimidating someone with a razor blade, and Sergeant McAninch answered
that he believed so and stated “there was a jury trial with intimidation in which
it was actually mentioned to the jail commander about causing harm to him of
cutting something up.” Transcript Volume II at 167. When later asked by Huff
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 5 of 16
if he had ever intimidated somebody with a razor blade threatening to cut them
or harm them, Sergeant McAninch answered: “Not with a razorblade, but
finding them in the cell, and the intimidation of harming staff or anything like
that, it’s, it’s not going to be a, a bridge that I want to cross.” Id. at 168.
[12] On redirect examination, the following exchange occurred without objection:
Q You said that uh, you were asked about whether or not, in
addition to the intimidation question, that was asked repeatedly,
there was, was [Huff] ever found with a razorblade, and you
started to answer that in the affirmative. What were you talking
about?
A As far as being found with a razorblade?
Q Uh huh.
A Multiple times.
Id. at 170. On recross examination by Huff, the following exchange occurred:
Q So you said the Defendant has been found multiple times in
possession of a razorblade, and you have never heard of him
threatening anyone or using it to harm anyone with it?
A No.
Q On these multiple times he has been found in possession of a
razorblade,
A Yes.
Q Yeah, none of these times there has ever been any reports of
him harming anyone with a razorblade or threatening anyone
with a razorblade?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 6 of 16
A Because the officers would discover them in time.
Id. at 170-171.
[13] Without objection, Pulaski County Sheriff’s Corrections Officer Isaiah Hilt
testified Huff kicked the door after being placed inside the holding cell. The
court also admitted photos of the razor blade found in the envelope.
[14] Corey Scott McKinney, the investigations supervisor assigned to the Westville
Correctional Facility, testified that he received specialized training concerning
inmates and the potential use of weapons and developed an expertise in the
area of weapons used by inmates. He testified that inmates use a razor blade
for anything from “a tool for like arts and crafts, things to send out to their
families, to cutting tools for, for weapons.” Id. at 205. When asked how
inmates modify a disposable razor so it can be used as a weapon, McKinney
answered that “the razors that our facility use have a plastic safety shroud
around them that is not meant to be disassembled, so it has to physically by, the
plastic has to physically be broken off in order to gain access to the metal strip
of razor inside of it” and that “[t]hey are referred to commonly as like a safety
razor.” Id.
[15] He indicated the blades are dangers to others for “any number of reasons”
including by coming into contact with staff during the search of an offender’s
property. Id. at 206. He stated that the Department of Correction has
restrictions on the use of razors because they can be used as a dangerous
instrumentality and are classified as dangerous weapons. He testified that a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 7 of 16
great number of cases he had investigated or supervised involved razor blades
and that injuries involved slicing injuries, cutting major veins and arteries,
serious injury to the limbs, permanent disfigurement, or death. When asked to
review the photos of the razor blade found in this case and whether it could
cause bodily injury, he answered, “Yes. Absolutely.” Id. at 212. He testified
he had seen cases where “they are used as they are in that, in that photo, where
no extra preparation has been done, other than removing it from the plastic
shroud.” Id. at 213. The following exchange then occurred:
Q So, the mere fact of having a razor or part of a razor as
depicted in those photos, would be classified by the Department
of Corrections as a dangerous instrumentality. Is that correct?
A As soon as it is modified from its intended purpose, which is a
shaving razor for the Department of Correction. As soon as it is
modified in its, and it’s placed in a manner like what the photos
are there, they are dangerous weapons, yes.
Id. He also indicated he did not conduct any portion of the investigation in this
particular case and was present in court only in capacity as an expert witness on
razor weapons in prisons.
[16] After the State rested, Huff testified that he was a little upset with the outcome
of the C.A.B. hearing and walked out “letting the door shut behind me out of
spite, because I was upset.” Id. at 222. He testified that Sergeant McAninch
placed him in a holding cell and gave him new property to hold him over until
his property was searched. He stated the officers brought him out sometime
later to read him a confiscation sheet and advised him they found a razor in an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 8 of 16
envelope addressed to his father, Brandon Huff. He testified he did not
remember ever putting a razor in the envelope. He stated that, while the letters
were dated from November, he could not send the envelope to his father until
he received the address of his father’s new house. He stated it was common for
inmates to have razor blades and that they are used for cutting hair and
pictures, arts and crafts, and sharpening pencils.
[17] On cross-examination, Huff acknowledged he had multiple convictions of theft.
He also indicated that he let the door slam to lock Sergeant McAninch in the
room. He testified that a broken razor from a shaving kit could be used to cut
pictures and sharpen pencils, and when asked if razor blades are passed out for
those purposes, he answered in the negative. He also indicated that he pops
razors open to remove the blades. The jury found Huff guilty as charged, and
the court sentenced him to sixty months incarceration.
Discussion
I.
[18] The first issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting
certain evidence. Huff challenges the admission of the video evidence as well
as the testimony of Sergeant McAninch and McKinney. He mentions Ind.
Evidence Rules 401, 402, 403, and 404, and argues that “[m]uch of the evidence
presented at the trial in this matter was not relevant and therefore not
admissible.” Appellant’s Brief at 7. He asserts that State’s Exhibit 1 was
prejudicial to his right to a fair trial because the video clip in which Sergeant
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 9 of 16
McAninch reviewed the confiscation form contained allegations regarding
other jail infractions and refers to an “ongoing investigation.” Id. at 9. He
contends the first video clip played for the jury referred to a disciplinary hearing
and a sentence of “30 days” after which the officer accused Huff of “not going
back to [his cellblock] in a reasonable manner.” Id. He argues the segment
involving the search of the envelope may arguably be relevant, but its probable
effect on the jury pales in comparison to the rest of the video evidence. 1 Id. He
also points to the testimony of Sergeant McAninch that he “kicked the door” of
a holding cell and testimony regarding uncharged allegations that he had been
in possession of razor blades on other occasions. Id. at 10 (quoting Transcript
Volume II at 175). He asserts that he objected to the admission of the video
evidence on the proper grounds that it was irrelevant, prejudicial, and confusing
and that his failure to object to specific additional testimony was not fatal to his
claim because it constituted fundamental error.
[19] The trial court has broad discretion to rule on the admissibility of evidence.
Bradley v. State, 54 N.E.3d 996, 999 (Ind. 2016). A trial court’s ruling on the
1
Huff contends State’s Exhibit 1 contains five separate segments, four of which are irrelevant. He also asserts
without citation to the transcript that “[t]he segments [of State’s Exhibit 1] titled ‘Altered Mattress’ and ‘Mat
With Paperclip’ depicts [sic] officers discussing a mattress containing ‘other stuff’ and the alert of a metal
detector on what officers identified as a piece of paperclip embedded in the interior padding of a mattress.”
Appellant’s Brief at 9. As pointed out by the State, State’s Exhibit 1 is a DVD containing five video clips.
The State asserts the titles were not relayed to the jury, the DVD was not sent to the jury during its
deliberations, and the three clips played for the jury included the clips titled “Huff door slam and kick,”
“metal detector and discovery of razor,” and “Huff statement about razor.” Appellee’s Brief at 10 n.4.
Based upon the transcript, it does not appear that the clips titled “altered mattress” or “Mat with paperclip”
were played for the jury.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 10 of 16
admission of evidence is generally accorded a great deal of deference on appeal.
Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459, 466 (Ind. 2015), reh’g denied. We will not reverse
an error in the admission of evidence if the error was harmless. Turner v. State,
953 N.E.2d 1039, 1058 (Ind. 2011). In determining the effect of the evidentiary
ruling on a defendant’s substantial rights, we look to the probable effect on the
fact finder. Id. at 1059. An improper admission is harmless if the conviction is
supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing
court that there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed
to the conviction. Id.
[20] Failure to timely object to the erroneous admission of evidence at trial will
procedurally foreclose the raising of such error on appeal unless the admission
constitutes fundamental error. Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 118 (Ind.
2015). The fundamental error exception to the contemporaneous objection
requirement is “extremely narrow, and applies only when the error constitutes a
blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is
substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due
process.” Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010) (quoting Mathews v.
State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind. 2006)), reh’g denied. To be considered
fundamental, the claimed error must make a fair trial impossible. Id. (citing
Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126, 131 (Ind. 2009), reh’g denied). Thus, this
exception is available only in “egregious circumstances.” Id. (citing Brown v.
State, 799 N.E.2d 1064, 1068 (Ind. 2003)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 11 of 16
[21] Ind. Evidence Rule 401 provides that evidence is relevant if it has any tendency
to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and
the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Ind. Evidence Rule 402
provides in part that irrelevant evidence is not admissible. Ind. Evidence Rule
403 provides that the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value
is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Ind. Evidence Rule 404(b) provides that evidence of a crime, wrong, or other
act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a
particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. Rule
404(b)(2) provides that “[t]his evidence may be admissible for another purpose,
such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”
[22] Huff did not object to the playing of the second and third video clips and does
not point to any objection to McKinney’s testimony. To the extent he cites
Rule 404(b) on appeal, his objection to the first video clip played to the jury was
based on relevance and not Ind. Evidence Rule 404(b). Accordingly, these
arguments are waived. See Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 683 (Ind. 2013)
(observing that the law is well settled that a defendant may not argue one
ground for objection at trial and then raise new grounds on appeal, the
defendant made no claim at trial that evidence of the burglary did not fit any of
the 404(b) exceptions, nor did he contend at trial that evidence of the burglary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 12 of 16
was bad character evidence prohibited by Rule 404(b), and holding that the
defendant waived the claim of error for appellate review).
[23] To the extent Huff points to the first video played for the jury showing the end
of the C.A.B. hearing, we note the video does not reveal what offense Huff
committed and showed Sergeant McAninch stating only that the “thirty days
will stand.” State’s Exhibit 1. To the extent Huff points to the first video clip in
which a loud sound can be heard after he was placed in a holding cell, the
record reveals that Officer Hilt testified, without objection, that Huff kicked the
door after being placed inside the holding cell. Further, Huff testified he let the
door slam to lock Sergeant McAninch in the room because he was upset with
the outcome of the C.A.B. hearing, and he walked out “letting the door shut
behind me out of spite, because I was upset.” Transcript Volume II at 222.
With respect to the reference to an ongoing investigation mentioned in the third
video clip played for the jury, Huff does not develop an argument that the
ongoing investigation related to an offense other than the conviction from
which he appeals. As for his contention that certain “testimony regarding
uncharged allegations that [he] has been in possession of razor blades on other
occasions was admitted,” he does not cite to the record. Appellant’s Brief at 10.
Further, Sergeant McAninch testified on cross-examination and re-cross-
examination by Huff regarding razor blades found in his possession. We
cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion or committed fundamental
error.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 13 of 16
II.
[24] The next issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Huff’s conviction.
Huff does not assert that he did not possess the razor blade. Rather, he argues
that the condition of the metal item found was likely sealed in an envelope for
months and had not been altered or affixed to any object which could have
rendered it a ready weapon.
[25] When reviewing claims of insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the
evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816,
817 (Ind. 1995), reh’g denied. We look to the evidence and the reasonable
inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id. The conviction will be
affirmed if there exists evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury
could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[26] Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-7 provides:
A person who knowingly or intentionally while incarcerated in a
penal facility possesses a device, equipment, a chemical
substance, or other material that:
(1) is used; or
(2) is intended to be used;
in a manner that is readily capable of causing bodily injury
commits a Level 5 felony.
[27] In Abney v. State, 822 N.E.2d 260, 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied, the
court interpreted a former version of the statute, Ind. Code § 35-44-3-9.5, which
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 14 of 16
similarly provided: “A person who knowingly or intentionally while
incarcerated in a penal facility possesses a device, . . . that: (1) is used; or (2)
intended to be used; in a manner that is readily capable of causing bodily injury
commits a Class C felony.” In addressing the defendant’s assertion that the
State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the device was used or
intended to be used in a manner readily capable of causing bodily injury, the
Court held:
We agree with Abney that the phrase “intended to be used” is
part of the relative clause, modifying the antecedents “in a
manner that is readily capable of causing bodily injury” and is
not indicative of his level of culpability. See Hevenor v. State, 784
N.E.2d 937, 941 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Rather, the culpability
level for I.C. § 35-44-3-9.5 is clearly defined in the opening
sentence as “a person who knowingly or intentionally . . .
possesses.”
Abney, 822 N.E.2d at 265.
[28] The record reveals Sergeant McAninch discovered an envelope that was “sealed
pretty tight” with the name of Huff’s father on it. Transcript Volume II at 152.
The envelope contained letters from a female inmate, a piece of toilet paper,
and a razor blade. Sergeant McAninch testified that inmates possessing razors
constitutes a “very high security risk, as well as a safety concern for both
inmates and staff.” Id. at 157. McKinney testified that the blades are dangers
to others for “any number of reasons” including by coming into contact with
staff during the search of an offender’s property. Id. at 206. When asked to
review the photos of the razor blade found in this case and whether it could
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 15 of 16
cause bodily injury, he answered, “Yes. Absolutely.” Id. at 212. He also
testified: “As soon as it is modified in its, and it’s placed in a manner like what
the photos are there, they are dangerous weapons, yes.” Id. at 213. Huff
indicated he popped the razors open to remove the blades.
[29] Based upon the record, we conclude that the State presented evidence of
probative value from which the jury could have found Huff guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of possessing material capable of causing bodily injury by an
inmate as a level 5 felony. See Abney, 822 N.E.2d at 265 (concluding that the
State presented sufficient evidence to support Abney’s conviction and observing
that the jail commander described a device as a hardened piece of steel
sharpened to a point, elaborated on its usage, and stated it was easily capable of
causing bodily injury to guards, other inmates, and the public in general); see
also Phillips v. State, 875 N.E.2d 480, 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Abney and
holding that “‘intended to be used’ describes the device, not the intent required
for a conviction”), trans. denied.
[30] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Huff’s convictions.
[31] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 16 of 16