from the St. Joseph Superior Court, No. 71D03-1308-FD-000653
The Honorable Jerome Frese, Judge
Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No.
Attorney for Appellant Jeffrey E. Kimmell South Bend, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General
of Indiana Ellen H. Meilaender Deputy Attorney General
a sufficiency case that turns, in part, on video evidence. At
issue is the appropriate standard of review for this video
evidence; more specifically, when does reviewing video
evidence become impermissible reweighing? This Court has
previously addressed video evidence in Robinson v.
State, where we observed that: "[w]hile technology
marches on, the appellate standard of review remains
constant." 5 N.E.3d 362, 365 (Ind. 2014). Today,
however, we write to supplement our standard of review for
video evidence to add a narrow failsafe. We hold that Indiana
appellate courts reviewing the sufficiency of evidence must
apply the same deferential standard of review to video
evidence as to other evidence, unless the video evidence
indisputably contradicts the trial court's findings. A
video indisputably contradicts the trial court's findings
when no reasonable person can view the video and come to a
case before us does not present such a set of circumstances.
That is, the video at issue does not indisputably contradict
the trial court's findings. As such, we affirm the trial
and Procedural History
August 2013, the South Bend police observed a white van
driven by Defendant, Royce Love, drive through a red light.
Police began following Love and saw him disregard a stop
sign. They then initiated a traffic stop, but Love did not
stop. Instead, he drove on, and other officers joined the
chase. Police attempted to use their cars to create a
roadblock, but Love hit one of the police cars and kept
going. Eventually, Love was stopped in an alley with the use
of a spike or stop sticks which were used by police to
deflate Love's tires.
exited his vehicle. He was ordered to the ground. He then
raised his hands and got down on all fours. He eventually lay
face down on the ground. Officers used tasers and a police
dog to effect Love's arrest.
was charged with three counts: 1) resisting law enforcement
(based on his fleeing in his vehicle) as a class D
felony; 2) battery to a law enforcement animal as
a class A misdemeanor; and 3) resisting law enforcement
(based on forcibly resisting after the vehicle was stopped)
as a class A misdemeanor. 
a jury trial, several police officers testified that Love did
not comply with the officers' commands after he exited
his vehicle. Police testified that because Love was
uncooperative, police deployed a taser, twice, but that Love
pulled the taser probes out, necessitating deployment of a
police dog. Police testified that the dog bit Love's
right forearm. Love then struck and squeezed the police dog,
causing the dog to yelp. Police also observed a bite ring on
the dog's head after they struck Love a number of times
to secure the dog's release.
State also introduced a DVD recording of the police pursuit
of Love's van, as taken from one of the officer's
cars. This video was admitted without objection and played
for the jury.
version of the events is very different. He testified that an
officer approached his vehicle and told him to "get the
F out of the car" and that he got out of his vehicle,
put his hands up and laid face down on the ground.
(Appellant's Appendix at 234.) He further testified that
he put his hands up to be cuffed, but the officers tased him,
kicked him and deployed the dog who bit him. He maintains
that he only tried to protect himself from the dog, that he
basically hugged the dog and that he wasn't trying to
also introduced a DVD recording from an officer's in-car
camera. It showed the scene in the alley where Love was
eventually stopped and arrested by police. It was ...