A.D., Appellant-Respondent v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] A.D. appeals his juvenile adjudication for armed robbery, a Level 3 felony if committed by an adult, as well as Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm, contending the trial court erred in admitting certain video footage. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 1, 2025, Dorion Plump was driving a 2021 Chevrolet Trax in South Bend. At some point, he stopped the car to use his phone. While he was stopped, “somebody came to the car” and said to Plump, “Give me the car.” Tr. Vol. II p. 30. The person took “a couple hundred dollars” from Plump. Id. Plump tried to drive away and “then a gunshot went off.” Id. Plump was uninjured and managed to drive away. However, he did not call police about the robbery because he was on house arrest.

[3] Soon after the robbery, fifteen-year-old A.D. called 911 and reported he had been shot in the hand. A.D. indicated to officers he was walking near the intersection of Diamond Avenue and California Avenue with his friends Junior and “Zay” when he felt a pain and realized he had been shot. Id. at 41. Officers canvased the area of California Avenue and Diamond Ave and found shattered glass in the street. Officers also obtained surveillance footage of the area.

[4] While investigating A.D.’s injury, officers became suspicious after he would not answer questions and because his injury appeared to be a “close contact” wound typical of self-inflicted injury. Id. at 21. Officers applied for and received a search warrant for his cell phone. On the phone were Instagram messages between A.D. and an account named “Zay Capo.” Id. at 46. In the messages, dated March 2, 2025, A.D. states, “I only got 400 off of that and I [ ] gave jr 60 and you 40[,]” “That's why I was trying to get him out the car[,]” and “Let my hand get better and we can help you with a lick for a pipe[.]” Ex. Vol. II p. 30.¹

[5] The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that A.D. was a delinquent for committing armed robbery, a Level 3 felony if committed by an adult, as well as Level 5 felony dangerous possession of a firearm by a child. A hearing was held on May 8, 2025. Plump testified that he could not remember much of the incident because he “blacked out” due to post-traumatic-stress-disorder. Tr. Vol. II p. 30. During his direct examination, the State introduced surveillance footage of the incident. Plump testified he had watched the video and that “it was a fair and accurate depiction of the way things happened[.]” Id. at 31. The court then admitted the footage over A.D.’s objection. The ten-second video shows a Chevrolet Trax stopped in the street with three individuals, dressed in black, huddled near the driver's door. See State's Ex. 1. A few seconds into the video, a gunshot is heard, and the car speeds off. The three individuals, one of whom appears to be holding a gun, then flee on foot.

[6] After the presentation of evidence, the court adjudicated A.D. a delinquent as to the Level 3 felony and as to Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm—a lesser-included of the Level 5 felony allegation. The court then conducted a dispositional hearing and ordered wardship of A.D. to the Indiana Department of Correction. A.D. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] A.D. asserts the juvenile court erred by admitting the video footage. We afford juvenile courts broad discretion in ruling on the admission of evidence. J.B. v. State, 205 N.E.2d 244, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). We will reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

[8] A.D. argues the video was substantive evidence and thus the State needed to provide the higher foundation required under the silent-witness theory. The State responds that it need not satisfy the silent-witness-theory requirements because the video was demonstrative evidence accompanying Plump's testimony. We agree.

The foundation necessary for admitting a photograph at trial depends on how it will be used. Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1282 (Ind. 2014). When photographs are introduced as demonstrative aids to assist in the presentation and interpretation of evidence, the only requirement is testimony that the photographs accurately depict the scene or occurrence as it appeared at the time in question. Id. But when photographs are admitted for substantive purposes as “silent witnesses” to the activity being depicted, the foundational requirements are “vastly different.” Id. Under the silent-witness theory of admission, there must be “a strong showing of authenticity and competency, including proof that the evidence was not altered.” McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 561–62 (Ind. 2018).

Stott v. State, 174 N.E.3d 236, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021).

[9] This case is akin to Edwards v. State, 762 N.E.2d 128 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), aff'd on reh'g, trans. denied. In Edwards, the court admitted surveillance video footage of a theft at a store. An employee, who was present at the time of the theft, also testified. On appeal, Edwards argued admission of the footage was erroneous because the State had not satisfied the requirements of the silent-witness theory. We declined to apply the silent-witness theory to the case, citing the employee's testimony and noting that the silent-witness theory's “high[ ] standard is applied in situations where there is no one who can testify as to [the video's] accuracy and authenticity.” Id. at 136; see also McFall v. State, 71 N.E.3d 383, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (“[V]ideos can be authenticated through either a witness's testimony or, in instances in which no witness observed what a ․ video portrays, the silent-witness theory.”).

[10] Similarly, here, Plump testified that he had seen the video and that it accurately depicted what had happened. After the video was published, Plump testified that he was “in the car” captured on the video. This is sufficient to authenticate the video. See Ind. Evidence Rule 901(a)(“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.”). As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Detective Jordan Acton of the South Bend Police Department testified a “pipe” refers to a gun. Tr. Vol. II p. 50.

Scheele, Judge.

Brown, J., and Felix, J., concur.