OSBORN v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Ronald Osborn appeals his convictions for Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated (OWI). He presents the following restated issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence abridged police dashcam and bodycam footage over Osborn's claim of a discovery violation?

2. Did the cumulative effect of discovery violations by the State and inconsistent rulings by the trial court deny Osborn a fair trial?

3. Were the trial court's verdict forms, which listed guilty as the first option and not guilty as the second option, improper?

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] After midnight on May 18, 2024, Madison County Sheriff's Deputy Jordan Allen conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle being driven erratically by Osborn. Osborn's adult son, Devin, was also present in the vehicle. Osborn told Deputy Allen that he had not been drinking and that, to his knowledge, there was nothing illegal in the vehicle, which was owned by a friend. Based on Osborn's driving, his responses during the stop, and the nervous behavior of Osborn and Devin, Deputy Allen believed that Osborn was impaired and that there might be “more going on” than just impaired driving. Transcript Vol. 2 at 46.

[4] Upon returning to his patrol vehicle to run Osborn's license and registration, Deputy Allen called for a K-9 unit. Anderson Police Officer Chaz Williams arrived with his K-9, Petra, minutes later. Petra conducted an open-air sniff around the exterior of Osborn's vehicle, and Officer Williams did not observe a change in Petra's behavior to indicate an alert for narcotics.

[5] Meanwhile, Deputy Allen administered three standardized field sobriety tests to Osborn. Madison County Sheriff's Deputy Blake Callahan, who had arrived as backup, then administered three Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) tests. Deputy Callahan had special ARIDE training and was a drug recognition expert. Based on Osborn's performance on the tests, Deputies Allen and Callahan believed that Osborn was impaired due to the use of narcotics. Deputy Allen arrested Osborn for OWI and read him his rights, along with informing him of Indiana's implied consent law. Osborn agreed to submit to a blood draw. He was then placed in Deputy Allen's patrol vehicle, where he eventually fell asleep.

[6] Because Devin did not have a valid driver's license and the vehicle would be a hazard if it remained on the side of the road, Deputy Allen decided to impound it. Shortly into the inventory search at the scene, Deputy Allen discovered what he believed to be marijuana in the center console area of the vehicle. He then searched the passenger side of the vehicle and discovered, under the passenger seat, a large plastic bag that contained a digital scale, a roll of smaller plastic bags, and a bag of what Deputy Allen considered to be an “extremely large” quantity of methamphetamine. Id. at 65. There were also “a bunch of ․ collectible coins” in the bag, which Deputy Allen thought was “odd.” Id. Lab testing later confirmed that the bag contained 101 grams of methamphetamine, which is just over three and one-half ounces.

[7] Deputy Callahan arrested Devin and placed him in his patrol vehicle. Meanwhile, Osborn awoke, while confined inside Deputy Allen's vehicle, and watched as Deputy Allen went with an evidence bag to the passenger side of Osborn's vehicle. Osborn remarked, as recorded by an interior video camera, “it's over now.” State's Exhibit 7 at 00:34 of video file 5.5.¹

[8] Deputy Allen spoke with Devin at the scene and asked about the methamphetamine that was found. Devin stated that it was not his and that Osborn handed it to him to put under the seat before being pulled over. When asked about the coins that were with the methamphetamine, Devin said that Osborn collects coins.

[9] While transporting Osborn to the hospital for a blood draw, Deputy Allen asked Osborn how much methamphetamine was in the bag, and Osborn replied that there were three ounces. He later explained to Deputy Allen at the hospital that he had paid around $800 for the methamphetamine and that he planned to sell two ounces and keep the rest for personal use. Regarding the coins, Osborn noted that he collects them. Osborn expressed that he was glad that he had been caught because it was the only way he would get clean. He acknowledged using methamphetamine earlier that day, and his blood test returned positive for, among other things, methamphetamine.

[10] Two days later, the State charged Osborn with Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor OWI. He had a two-day jury trial that commenced on January 15, 2025. On Osborn's motion, the trial court precluded the State from presenting several items of evidence at trial due to the State's late disclosure of said evidence to the defense. The excluded evidence included, among other things, a recorded interview of Osborn and recorded jail calls made by Devin after his arrest.²

[11] On the morning of the first day of trial, the State informed Osborn that it planned to offer into evidence abridged video clips taken from the police cameras during the incident. Osborn requested that the trial court exclude such evidence because counsel did not have time to review and verify the clips, as the State previously had disclosed only the full videos to the defense. The trial court denied the request, explaining in part that this is “not new evidence that just came out of the woodwork.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 9. Osborn did not ask for a continuance in light of the trial court's ruling. Further, these video clips were not offered into evidence until the second day of trial. Osborn made contemporaneous objections to State's Exhibits 7 and 8 based on their late disclosure, which the trial court overruled.

[12] The jury found Osborn guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him, on February 14, 2025, to twenty-three years in prison. Osborn now appeals. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Discussion & Decision

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting State's Exhibits 7 and 8 into evidence.

[13] Osborn contends that State's Exhibits 7 and 8 should have been excluded at trial because the abridged video clips were not disclosed to him until the first day of trial. He claims that “[g]iven the time constraints during trial it would have been difficult if not impossible for the defense to review both the full and redacted version to ensure no improper or misleading information was before the jury.” Appellant's Brief at 9.

[14] The trial court has broad discretion in dealing with discovery violations, and we may reverse only for an abuse of that discretion involving clear error and resulting prejudice. Berry v. State, 715 N.E.2d 864, 866 (Ind. 1999). “Exclusion of the evidence is an extreme remedy and is to be used only if the State's actions were deliberate and the conduct prevented a fair trial.” Id. The proper remedy for a discovery violation is generally a continuance. Id. “Failure to alternatively request a continuance upon moving to exclude evidence, where a continuance may be an appropriate remedy, constitutes a waiver of any alleged error pertaining to noncompliance with the court's discovery order.” Warren v. State, 725 N.E.2d 828, 832 (Ind. 2000).

[15] Here, although a continuance would have remedied the prejudice Osborn claims he suffered by the alleged discovery violation, Osborn failed to request a continuance on day one or day two of trial. He therefore waived the issue.

[16] Waiver aside, we observe that State's Exhibits 7 and 8 were not admitted into evidence until the second day of trial. The trial court recessed early on the first day of trial, around 3:30, to give Osborn time to review the exhibits and compare the hour of video clips to the full videos that the State had previously provided to the defense. Defense counsel most certainly was already familiar with the content of the full videos,³ and thus it would not have been a tall task to determine whether the abridged videos fairly and accurately reflected their relevant content. And to the extent that Osborn was concerned that something had been left out of the clips, he was free to request the full videos to be played for the jury under the doctrine of completeness. See Ind. Evid. Rule 106 (“If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other writing or recorded statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.”). He never made such a request. Under the circumstances, Osborn has failed to establish an abuse of discretion.

2. Osborn has not established cumulative error requiring reversal.

[17] Osborn complains that the trial court's “selective enforcement of the discovery rules prejudiced his defense.” Appellant's Brief at 7. In this regard, he notes that the Supreme Court “has been willing to assume ‘for the sake of argument, that under some circumstances the cumulative effect of trial errors may warrant reversal even if each might be deemed harmless in isolation,’ but not where it has been ‘clear in light of the evidence of guilt that no prejudice resulted from any of the erroneous rulings, individually or cumulatively.’ ” Id. at 11-12 (quoting Hubbell v. State, 754 N.E.2d 884, 895 (Ind. 2001) and citing Inman v. State, 4 N.E.3d 190, 203 (Ind. 2014)).

[18] The glaring problem with Osborn's argument in this regard is that he has only directed us to one alleged erroneous ruling – the admission into evidence of the abridged video clips. The rest of the evidence to which he objected based on discovery violations appears to have been excluded from evidence by the trial court. At least Osborn has not informed us otherwise.⁴ As we have affirmed the trial court's ruling regarding Exhibits 7 and 8, and there are no other alleged erroneous rulings presented for our review, Osborn's claim based on cumulative error is without merit.

3. The trial court did not err by providing the jury with verdict forms that listed guilty before not guilty.

[19] Lastly, Osborn argues that the trial court's jury verdict forms were erroneous because they listed guilty as the first option and not guilty as the second option. In denying Osborn's request, the trial court explained:

[J]uries are really smart, they're really good, they know what their job is, and they acquit whether the Defendant is not guilty is on the first line or the second line. They convict whether it's the first line or the second line because they pay attention to their instructions and they're good and they're smart.

Transcript Vol. 3 at 5.

[20] Osborne acknowledges that this issue has been addressed and summarily rejected by our Supreme Court. See Tonge v. State, 575 N.E.2d 269, 270-71 (Ind. 1991) (“We cannot derogate the intelligence of a jury by assuming they would be prejudiced by such an insignificant fact as the placement of the verdict forms on the sheet of paper.”). He argues, however, that Tonge “is outdated and incorrectly decided without meaningful analysis regarding the continuing presumption of innocence[.]” Appellant's Brief at 14.

[21] We recently rejected the same invitation to reconsider Tonge:

Sterling misunderstands our role as an intermediate appellate court. “As Indiana's intermediate appellate court, we are bound by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and are not at liberty to ‘reconsider’ that precedent.” Hill v. State, 122 N.E.3d 979, 982 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citing Minor v. State, 36 N.E.3d 1065, 1074 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)). Because we have no authority to reconsider Tonge, Sterling's claim fails.

Sterling v. State, 199 N.E.3d 377, 386 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). Osborn's claim fails for the same reason.

[22] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   State's Exhibit 7, which was admitted into evidence over Osborn's objection, is a collection of thirteen video clips from Deputy Allen's body, interior car, and dash cameras (collectively, police cameras). The clips total just over an hour of footage. State's Exhibit 8, also admitted into evidence over Osborn's objection, contains two short clips from Deputy Allen's bodycam in which he asked Devin about the methamphetamine.

2.   The State sought to admit the jail calls for impeachment purposes, as it learned shortly before trial that Devin planned to testify that the methamphetamine was his, not Osborn's. Devin had recently pled guilty and been convicted of possession of methamphetamine and other charges related to this incident. Devin did testify on behalf of Osborn, and the State was precluded from impeaching him with the jail calls.

3.   Deputy Allen testified that his dashcam and bodycam videos were each about three or four hours long without the “dead time” edited out. Transcript Vol. 2 at 96.

4.   Osborn noted at trial, and now on appeal, that the State committed a discovery violation by failing to disclose Officer Williams's new opinion that Petra changed her behavior during the open-air sniff. At the scene, Officer Williams determined that Petra did not alert during the sniff. At trial, however, he testified that upon viewing the video footage in preparation for trial, he noticed changes in her behavior indicating a possible alert on the passenger side of the vehicle. Osborn, however, neither objected during Officer Williams's testimony nor asked the trial court to take any type of corrective action. Accordingly, Osborn cannot add this to the list of alleged erroneous rulings made by the trial court.

Altice, Judge.

May, J. and Foley, J., concur.