GERONIMO v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Carlos Geronimo raped A.K. At trial, the court excluded videos A.K. filmed of herself on TikTok while waiting at the hospital after the incident. The jury found Geronimo guilty of rape, and he was convicted thereof. Geronimo appeals and raises one issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the TikTok videos.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In the summer of 2024, Geronimo was working at a plastics factory, and A.K. was working at a restaurant inside the factory. Geronimo and A.K. had never met before, although they had previously “added” each other as friends on Snapchat.¹ Tr. Vol. II at 74. In mid-June, the two began sending messages to each other on Snapchat.

[4] After a few days, on June 19, Geronimo invited A.K. to hang out at his house in Evansville, Indiana. Geronimo picked up A.K. at approximately 9:40 p.m. While in the vehicle, A.K. noticed Geronimo's “voice and demeanor ․ changed,” and her “stomach start[ed] turning.” Tr. Vol. II at 78.

[5] Within minutes of arriving at Geronimo's home, A.K. texted her friend Jaiden Majors, “[S]ave me․ I don't like it here.” Tr. Vol. IV at 23. A.K. wanted to “get ․ out of the situation without being rude.” Tr. Vol. II at 80. Jaiden found A.K.’s location using an app they shared and called A.K. with an “excuse for [A.K.] to leave.” Id. at 82.

[6] When A.K. told Geronimo she had to leave, he began “kissing on [her] body,” “forcefully touching” her, and “pulling her clothes down.” Tr. Vol. II at 83. A.K. told Geronimo, “[N]o,” but he did not listen. Id. Geronimo “pull[ed] ․ his pants down,” “pushed [A.K.] onto the futon,” and “started entering inside of [her] with his penis,” id., while holding her “against the couch,” id. at 84.

[7] After the assault, A.K. could hear Jaiden “calling and honk[ing],” and she left the house. Tr. Vol. II at 84. As she was leaving, A.K. texted Jaiden, “[S]creenshot the location․ He genuinely just ․ raped me while I said no multiple times.” Id. at 85. When Jaiden saw A.K., she could “tell [A.K.] was upset” and saw “a tear or two running down her face.” Id. at 132.

[8] Shortly after 11:00 p.m., A.K. and Jaiden went to the hospital “to get a rape kit.” Tr. Vol. II at 86. While waiting at the hospital, A.K. filmed videos of herself on TikTok.²

[9] At approximately 12:50 a.m., A.K. and Jaiden left the hospital after hospital staff informed them the hospital “didn't do” rape kits. Tr. Vol. II at 87. By this point, A.K. did not feel “physically well enough” to go to a second hospital and “just wanted to go to bed and cry.” Id. A.K. was “under the impression” that the hospital would contact law enforcement “because they told [her] that they had to,” so A.K. did not contact law enforcement on her own that night. Id.

[10] On June 24, after no one contacted her, A.K. reported the incident to law enforcement. An officer took photographs of bruises that remained on A.K.’s thighs. The State charged Geronimo with two counts of rape as Level 3 felonies, the first for having sexual intercourse with A.K. by force ³ and the second for having sexual intercourse with A.K. while disregarding her attempts to refuse ⁴ .

[11] At the ensuing jury trial, the trial court admitted still shots of the TikTok videos over the State's objection. A.K. explained that she filmed the videos because she was “goofing off because [her] brain was tired,” she was “bored,” and she wanted to “entertain [herself] in the hospital.” Id. at 115. When Geronimo later sought to admit the videos themselves, the State objected on grounds that the videos were irrelevant, prejudicial, and cumulative of other evidence. Geronimo argued the videos showed A.K. lip-syncing to music and were relevant because they showed A.K. was not “upset” after the incident. Tr. Vol. II at 147. The trial court ruled the videos were inadmissible because they were “cumulative” of other evidence, had “little probative value,” and “deflect[ed] from the essential issues of the trial.” Id. at 172. After the State's case-in-chief, Geronimo testified in his own defense and claimed the sexual intercourse was consensual.

[12] The jury found Geronimo guilty as charged. Due to double jeopardy concerns, the trial court entered a conviction on only the first rape charge. Geronimo was sentenced to ten years of incarceration. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Excluding the TikTok Videos

[13] Geronimo claims that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the TikTok videos at trial. We generally review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Russell v. State, 234 N.E.3d 829, 858 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012)), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 424 (2024). “[W]e may affirm the trial court's decision on any basis supported by the record,” Means v. State, 201 N.E.3d 1158, 1163 (Ind. 2023) (citing Ramirez v. State, 174 N.E.3d 181, 190 n.2 (Ind. 2021)), and we will reverse “only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances,” Russell, 234 N.E.3d at 858 (quoting Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind. 2001)).

[14] Geronimo argues that the videos were admissible because they were relevant to and probative of whether a forcible rape occurred. Evidence is relevant if “(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Ind. Evidence Rule 401. A trial court “may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Id. 403.

[15] We need not address whether the videos were relevant or probative because we agree that the videos were cumulative of other evidence. First, the trial court had already admitted still shots of the videos. Second, A.K. testified about making the videos and why she made them—she filmed TikTok videos of herself “goofing off” while “bored” at the hospital. Tr. Vol. II at 115. Whatever probative value the videos had was substantially outweighed by their cumulative nature. The trial court thus did not abuse its discretion by excluding the videos.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Snapchat is a social app where users can “chat” and “send videos or photos.” Tr. Vol. II at 75.

2.   TikTok is a social app popular for creating and sharing short videos.

3.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-1(a)(1).

4.   I.C. § 35-42-4-1(a)(4).

Felix, Judge.

May, J., and Mathias, J., concur.