Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Love v. State

Supreme Court of Indiana

May 11, 2017

Royce Love, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
The State of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

         Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court, No. 71D03-1308-FD-000653 The Honorable Jerome Frese, Judge

         On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 71A03-1511-CR-02009

          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 Indianapolis, Indiana

          David, Justice.

         This is 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 different conclusion.

         The 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 court.

         Facts and Procedural History

         In 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.

         Love 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.

         Love was charged with three counts: 1) resisting law enforcement (based on his fleeing in his vehicle) as a class D felony[1]; 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. [2]

         During 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.

         The 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.

         Love's 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 hurt it.

         Love 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.