Keith Payton, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Keith Payton appeals following his conviction of Level 5 felony battery of a public safety official.¹ Payton raises two issues for our review, which we revise and restate as:

Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence:

1. surveillance footage of the prison dayroom depicting the incident; and

2. video of prison authorities interviewing Payton.

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 22, 2022, Payton was an inmate housed in the N unit at the Miami Correctional Facility (“MCF”). Correctional Officer Xavier Torres was one of the officers assigned to supervise the inmates in that unit. The inmates were allowed to be out of their cells for two hours a day to use the dayroom. Toward the end of that period, Officer Torres warned the inmates they had five minutes to return to their cells. Payton was on the phone with his girlfriend when Officer Torres announced the warning, and Payton turned toward Officer Torres and told him “shut up and fuck you.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 19.) Shortly thereafter, the phones in the dayroom turned off. Payton walked over to Officer Torres and punched him in the head. Officer Torres retreated to the door to N unit and activated an emergency button to summon assistance. Payton followed Officer Torres and continued to punch him. Officer Torres then curled into a ball and attempted to cover his face and chest while Payton continued to punch him. Payton hit Officer Torres “around thirty to fifty” times. (Id.) When Payton finished hitting Officer Torres, he walked back toward his cell. About a minute later, additional correctional officers arrived in N unit.

[3] Correctional Officer Logan Mason was one of the officers who responded to Officer Torres's call for assistance. After the inmates returned to their cells, Officer Mason and another officer went from cell to cell to make sure each cell was locked. When they reached Payton's cell, Payton walked up to the cell door and yelled “[I] did it ․ lock [me] up.” (Id. at 43.) After the officers confirmed all the cells in the housing unit were locked, they handcuffed Payton and escorted him out of N unit. While other officers were taking Payton to the prison's restrictive housing unit, Payton said, “I beat his ass” and “he deserved it.” (Id. at 53.)

[4] Prison medical staff evaluated Officer Torres and then sent him to the hospital for further treatment. His injuries included a concussion, an abrasion above his left eye, bruising to his left ear and along the right side of his face, a bloody nose, and a swollen upper lip. After receiving treatment at the hospital, Officer Torres returned to MCF where Investigator Matthew Bishir interviewed him about the incident. After speaking with Officer Torres, Investigator Bishir went to the restrictive housing unit and interviewed Payton. Investigator Bishir read Payton his Miranda rights,² and Payton chose to waive those rights and answer Investigator Bisher's questions. Payton explained that he hit Officer Torres because the phones were turned off before the end of the inmates’ dayroom period. He also acknowledged that he “shouldn't have went that far and put my hands on him.” (Ex. 19 at 10:45 to 10:49.) The video camera stopped recording midway through the interview. Investigator Bishir was able to restart the video camera a short time later and the interview resumed.

[5] The State charged Payton with Level 5 felony battery on December 21, 2022. The trial court held Payton's three-day jury trial in April 2024. Investigator Bishir testified at trial that there are two surveillance cameras stationed in the dayroom of the N unit. He explained that the cameras recorded continuously, and the video was saved to a secured drive that only authorized individuals could access. Moreover, Investigator Bishir also stated that the recordings could not be altered, and only investigators, deputy wardens, and the warden could download video from the server. He explained the security cameras appeared to be operational and in good working order on November 22, 2022, and he identified State's Exhibit 17 as a true and accurate copy of the footage he downloaded from the secured server for the time of the incident. When the State sought to admit Exhibit 17 into evidence, Payton objected on the basis that the State failed to lay an adequate foundation for its admission under the silent witness theory. The trial court overruled the objection.

[6] Later in Investigator Bishir's testimony, the State sought to admit State's Exhibits 19 and 19R. Investigator Bishir testified that the two exhibits contained the video recording of his interview with Payton. He also explained that about a minute of the interview was not recorded. He said the camera shut off when it reached its maximum file size, and he had to restart the video recording. Payton objected to admission of the exhibits because “there's no recollection as to what was actually missed during that one minute and it most certainly could impact the actual totality of the interview itself.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 99.) The trial court overruled Payton's objection. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Payton guilty. On May 2, 2024, the trial court sentenced Payton to a term of six years and ordered Payton to serve that sentence consecutive to the sentence he was serving at the time of the offense.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Payton contends the trial court improperly admitted the surveillance footage from the dayroom depicting the incident involving Officer Torres and the video recording of Investigator Bishir's interview of Payton. The trial court enjoys broad discretion when ruling on the admission of evidence, and we review such decisions for an abuse of discretion. M.D. v. State, 108 N.E.3d 301, 303 (Ind. 2018). “A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if it misapplies the law.” Id.

1. Surveillance Footage

[8] Payton contends the State failed to adequately authenticate the surveillance footage depicting the incident and, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the footage into evidence. Indiana Evidence Rule 901(a) states: “To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” “Photographs and videos can be authenticated through either a witness's testimony or, in instances in which no witness observed what a photograph or video portrays, the silent-witness theory.” McFall v. State, 71 N.E.3d 383, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). The silent witness theory requires the proponent of the evidence to present “evidence describing the process or system that produced the videos or photographs and showing that the process or system produced an accurate result.” Id. “[W]hen automatic cameras are involved, there should be evidence as to how and when the camera was loaded, how frequently the camera was activated, when the photographs were taken, and the processing and changing of custody of the film after its removal from the camera.” McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 128 (Ind. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).

[9] Investigator Bishir testified that the surveillance cameras in the N unit dayroom were operational and in good working order at the time of the incident. He explained that the footage recorded by the cameras was stored on a secured server and only limited personnel could access the data on that server. Investigator Bishir had the authority as an investigator to view and download video from the server. He further testified that the footage cannot be altered, and he confirmed that State's Exhibit 17 was a true and accurate copy of the footage of the incident that he downloaded from the secured server. Therefore, we hold the State laid an adequate foundation to support admission of the surveillance footage, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the footage. See, e.g., McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 562 (Ind. 2018) (holding hotel manager sufficiently authenticated surveillance footage when the manager explained he recognized the hotel lobby depicted in the footage, explained the process for ensuring the security system maintained an accurate time-and-date stamp, explained the system recorded continuously, and explained how footage from the system could be retrieved).

2. Video Recording of Interview

[10] Payton also asserts the trial court erroneously admitted the videos of Investigator Bishir's interview of Payton. Rule 901 requires only that the proponent of evidence demonstrate a reasonable probability that the proffered evidence is what it purports to be. Pavlovich v. State, 6 N.E.3d 969, 976 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. Rule 901 does not require absolute proof of authenticity and “any inconclusiveness regarding the exhibit's connection with the events at issue goes to the exhibit's weight, not its admissibility.” Id. Here, Investigator Bishir interviewed Payton, and he testified that the exhibits were a true and accurate representation of that interview except for the one-minute portion of the interview when the video camera stopped recording.

[11] Payton argues “the recording of Payton is not a true and accurate depiction of Payton's statement because it is not complete.” (Appellant's Br. at 12.) Indiana Rule of Evidence 617, which applies to the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogations, provides:

(a) In a felony criminal prosecution, evidence of a statement made by a person during a Custodial Interrogation in a Place of Detention shall not be admitted against the person unless an Electronic Recording of the statement was made, preserved, and is available at trial, except upon clear and convincing proof of any one of the following:

*****

(3) The law enforcement officers conducting the Custodial Interrogation in good faith failed to make an Electronic Recording because the officers inadvertently failed to operate the recording equipment properly, or without the knowledge of any of said officers the recording equipment malfunctioned or stopped operating;

*****

(c) The Electronic Recording must be a complete, authentic, accurate, unaltered, and continuous record of a Custodial Interrogation.

While the electronic recording of Payton's interview was not continuous, Investigator Bishir testified the break in the recording was due to an equipment malfunction. As soon as he realized the video had stopped recording, he “hit the record button again to start it[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 98.) There is no indication that the pause in recording was the result of bad faith, and Payton was able to cross-examine Investigator Bishir about the unrecorded portion. Consequently, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the videos of Investigator Bishir's interview of Payton. See, e.g., Cherry v. State, 57 N.E.3d 867, 876 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting recorded portion of defendant's custodial interrogation even though approximately twenty-five minutes of the interrogation was unrecorded because of either an equipment malfunction or operator error), trans. denied.

Conclusion

[12] The State laid an adequate foundation to support admission of the dayroom surveillance footage under the silent-witness theory. In addition, the State laid an adequate foundation to support admission of the recording of Investigator Bishir's interview of Payton even though approximately one minute of the interview was unrecorded because of an equipment malfunction. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(g)(5)(A) (2022).

2.   Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966), reh'g denied.

May, Judge.

Judges Tavitas and DeBoer concur. Tavitas, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.