C.D., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After C.D. entered his father's garage and took personal property without permission, the trial court adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent. C.D. appeals that adjudication, arguing the court erred in both admitting and excluding certain evidence at the fact-finding hearing. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In August 2025, C.D. was sixteen years old and serving a one-year probationary sentence for an earlier delinquency adjudication.¹ He lived with his grandmother, whose house was only eight blocks from his father and stepmother's home. On the evening of August 28, C.D. went to his father's house wearing a camouflage military jacket and carrying a crossbow on his back. Father and Stepmother were not home at the time, but their security cameras alerted them that someone was on their property. Through the app on their phones, they observed the person on their property was C.D., and because he was not supposed to be there, they called the police. C.D. was gone by the time they returned home. When the police officer arrived, Stepmother told the officer that from their phone they saw C.D. enter and exit their garage, and they noticed several items were missing from the garage, including a rifle scope, nine Dewalt batteries, and Father's military jacket. She also said that C.D. had walked around the back of the house. When the officer looked at the back door, he noticed it had been dented and there was a tire iron lying on the ground nearby. Father and Stepmother told the officer that they hadn't given C.D. permission to be at their home or take anything.

[3] As a result of this incident, the State filed another delinquency petition against C.D., alleging he had committed acts constituting burglary, residential entry, theft, and criminal mischief, if committed by an adult. In the original case, the State filed a petition to revoke his probation based on these new offenses. At a joint hearing on the delinquency petition and probation revocation, the responding officer testified about the incident. The officer said that C.D.’s stepmother had provided him with her security footage from that day, and without formally admitting the footage into evidence, the State played a video clip from the footage.² The video depicted C.D. entering and exiting the garage and walking to the back of the house. Shortly after he walked to the back of the house, a banging sound could be heard in the video. Defense counsel did not object to the video clip being played.

[4] C.D.’s father and stepmother also testified. During cross-examination of Stepmother, defense counsel tried to introduce “some photographs of the property.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 67. The State objected on grounds that they had not been produced prior to the hearing and C.D. hadn't laid a proper foundation. The trial court sustained the objection, and defense counsel did not make an offer of proof. C.D. testified in his own defense and denied stealing anything or trying to break in through the back door. He said he was wearing his own military jacket that day and had gone to his father's house because he'd learned they were moving and he wanted to say goodbye to his little brother.

[5] Ultimately, the trial court found the State had proved the burglary and residential entry counts ³ beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore, had also met its burden on the petition to revoke his probation. Thus, the court adjudicated C.D. a delinquent. After the dispositional hearing, the court revoked and modified C.D.’s sentence in the original delinquency case to 104 days executed in the Department of Correction with fifty-two days of credit time and fifty-two days of good time credit, resulting in C.D. serving no additional time on that matter. On the new adjudication, the court sentenced him to home detention until his eighteenth birthday. C.D. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] C.D. argues the trial court erred by (1) excluding the photographs he sought to admit at the hearing and (2) allowing the State to play the security footage from father's house. The State argues C.D. has waived these arguments for appellate review. We agree with the State.

[7] Because C.D. failed to object to the admission of the evidence at the fact-finding hearing and failed to make an offer of proof in response to the court's exclusion of the photographs, he has waived appellate review of the alleged errors. Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010) (noting the failure to object to the admission of evidence waives the issue for appeal), reh'g denied; Tibbs v. State, 59 N.E.3d 1005, 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (noting that failing to make an offer of proof waives the issue for appeal). As a result, he can only prevail on appeal by showing the court's evidentiary decisions constituted fundamental error. Perry v. State, 267 N.E.3d 20, 32 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied. “A fundamental error is ‘a substantial, blatant violation of basic principles of due process rendering the trial unfair to the defendant.’ ” Carter v. State, 754 N.E.2d 877, 881 (Ind. 2001) (quoting Taylor v. State, 717 N.E.2d 90, 93 (Ind. 1999)), reh'g denied. This “extremely narrow” doctrine applies only where the error was “so prejudicial to the rights of [the] defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.” Id. (quoting Taylor, 717 N.E.2d at 93-94).

[8] Turning to his first argument, C.D. acknowledges that he failed to make an offer of proof. He therefore argues the photographs’ exclusion constituted fundamental error by violating his right to present a meaningful defense. However, we are unable to adequately address his argument because the photographs were not made part of the record below, and C.D. failed to produce them on appeal to this Court. As a result, we have no way of knowing what these photographs depicted, which hinders our ability to determine whether their exclusion was error, let alone fundamental error. “[T]he party who alleges error has the duty to provide a proper record on appeal so that an intelligent review of the issues may be made[.]” Myers v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1069, 1080 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Fleenor v. State, 514 N.E.2d 80, 87 (Ind. 1987), reh'g denied, cert. denied), reh'g denied. In the absence of the photographs or an offer to prove, “we cannot engage in ‘meaningful appellate review’ ” of C.D.’s claims regarding those photographs and thus, he has waived the issue for appeal. Stone v. State, No. 25A-CR-82, 2025 WL 2180855, at *5 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2025) (mem.) (quoting Cobb v. State, 222 N.E.3d 373, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), reh'g denied, trans. denied), trans. denied.

[9] As for the security footage played at the hearing, we note that the video was never formally admitted into evidence by the court. However, portions of the video were played in open court with no objection from C.D. Because he failed to object, he must show it was fundamental error for the video to have been played. Brown, 929 N.E.2d at 207. While C.D. makes a naked assertion in his brief that the State's failure to properly authenticate the video under the silent witness theory was fundamental error, his analysis is limited to whether the alleged error was harmless. See Appellant's Brief at 16-18. He does not develop any argument, let alone a cogent one, as to why playing the video caused the extreme prejudice required to show fundamental error. See Hollingsworth v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1096, 1099 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (“Simply asserting that error occurred and was harmful is insufficient to establish fundamental error.”), reh'g denied, trans. denied; see also Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (providing that appellant's arguments must be supported by cogent reasoning). C.D. has therefore waived appellate review of this argument as well. See Howard v. State, No. 23A-CR-457, 2023 WL 6291485, at *4 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2023) (mem.) (concluding the appellant waived a fundamental error argument by failing to support it with cogent reasoning).

Conclusion

[10] Finding C.D. has waived appellate review of his arguments, we affirm.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In October 2024, the State alleged C.D. had committed reckless driving and knowingly or intentionally operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a license, and C.D. ultimately admitted the allegations. The trial court adjudicated him delinquent and sentenced him to one year on probation beginning in March 2025.

2.   Because the video was never formally admitted into evidence, it was not made part of the record on appeal.

3.   The trial court dismissed the theft count based on double jeopardy concerns, and it dismissed the criminal mischief count on the grounds that the State had not met its burden of proof.

DeBoer, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.