Jeremy Hopkins, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jeremy Hopkins appeals his conviction for domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor. Hopkins claims the trial court erred in admitting certain video recordings into evidence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 1, 2024, Tabitha Dyson drove to Hopkins Storage, a storage facility. Both her daughter C.M. and C.M.’s child were in the car. Dyson and Hopkins had been in a relationship for about twelve years. Dyson walked inside the facility, and C.M. stayed in the car with her child. Dyson found Hopkins and “said that [she] knew he had not answered [her] calls because his secretary was present and that's why he was avoiding [her] calls.” Transcript Volume II at 131. Hopkins yelled at Dyson and stated “that he wasn't F'ing her.” Id. Dyson and Hopkins argued.

[3] As Dyson was exiting an exterior door to the building, Hopkins “grab[bed] [her] by the back of [her] neck ․ and squeezed.” Id. at 133-134. Dyson “jerked and turned towards him and said don't put your hands on me,” and Hopkins “grab[bed] [her] by [her] breasts” and “pushe[d] [her] backwards across the parking lot.” Id. at 134. Dyson walked toward her car, and Hopkins followed her, “stood in the way of the door and continued to yell at [her],” and “then shoved [her] out of the way ․ of the door, opened the door, and shoved [her] in to the car.” Id. at 135. C.M. saw Hopkins shove Dyson into the car and observed that he was “enraged, very furious.” Id. at 123. Dyson drove to the police station.

[4] Mooresville Police Officer David Skirvin drove to the storage facility to speak with Hopkins. Hopkins told Officer Skirvin that he had a fight with Dyson and that he had “[p]ushed her.” Id. at 114. Officer Skirvin asked if he could see the surveillance video, Hopkins agreed, and Officer Skirvin viewed a video recording.¹ Officer Skirvin saw that the video showed Hopkins grab Dyson's breasts. On October 3, 2024, Dyson sent an email to Mooresville Police Officer Ryan Russell containing two video recordings taken from security cameras at the facility.²

[5] The State charged Hopkins with domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor and disorderly conduct as a class B misdemeanor. The court held a jury trial at which Officer Skirvin, Officer Russell, C.M., Dyson, and Hopkins testified. Dyson testified there were security cameras at the business and she had access to them. When asked, “[d]id [Hopkins] know when you got access to them,” Dyson answered, “[t]echnically yes, I did show it to him.” Id. at 137. When asked how she obtained access, she testified, “he had an app on his phone that he could access the security cameras, and if you were able to get into that app and then they would give you the information as far as the log[-]in and everything” and “I got it off his phone.” Id. at 137-138. When asked, “[a]t some point you said you believe he knew that you had access,” she replied “[y]es,” when asked “after that time, when you think he believed you had access, did he ever tell you to remove it from your phone,” she answered “[n]o,” and when asked “[d]id the log[-]in information ever change so you could no longer access the 12 app,” she answered “[n]o.” Id. at 138.

[6] The State introduced State's Exhibit 1, which contained three video recordings. Hopkins's counsel stated, “I'm going to object based on she did not have permission to access the video. I don't think that it's clear that my client was aware that she had access and essentially I think these videos were hacked and stolen, so based on that I'd object.” Id. at 140. The prosecutor responded, “[o]ne of the videos was provided to an officer by the defendant himself,” “[t]he other two videos, the Fourth Amendment is only applicable to law enforcement officers,” and “[w]hat she did as a private citizen is not implicated.” Id. The court admitted the recordings. The jury found Hopkins guilty of domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor and not guilty of disorderly conduct. The court sentenced Hopkins to 365 days with 355 days suspended to probation.

Discussion

[7] Hopkins claims the trial court “erred in admitting video evidence obtained through unauthorized electronic intrusion in violation of the Indiana and Federal Wiretap Acts.” Appellant's Brief at 8 (capitalization omitted). He further asserts the error was not harmless, arguing the videos “were central to the State's case and outcome determinative,” “[t]he encounter between Hopkins and Dyson lasted only seconds,” and “[t]he admission of those recordings transformed the case from a credibility contest into one driven by visual evidence obtained through unauthorized means.” Id. at 19-20. The State maintains that Hopkins waived his claim because he did not raise the issue at trial, he does not assert fundamental error, and any error in admitting the videos was harmless.

[8] The trial court has broad discretion to rule on the admissibility of evidence. Bradley v. State, 54 N.E.3d 996, 999 (Ind. 2016). “To preserve a claim of error regarding the admission of evidence, the trial objection must include the specific ground for the exclusion of the evidence.” Gayden v. State, 863 N.E.2d 1193, 1198 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citation omitted), trans. denied. A failure to timely object to the erroneous admission of evidence at trial will procedurally foreclose the raising of such error on appeal unless the admission constitutes fundamental error. Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 118 (Ind. 2015). Fundamental error is an extremely narrow exception that allows a defendant to avoid waiver of an issue and is error that makes a fair trial impossible or constitutes clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm. Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 835 (Ind. 2006). When the State introduced the video recordings as State's Exhibit 1, Hopkins's counsel objected but did not mention the federal or state wiretap statutes. Accordingly, Hopkins has waived his claim. See Campos v. State, 885 N.E.2d 590, 602 n.3 (Ind. 2008) (noting that Campos cited a case dealing with federal and Indiana wiretapping statutes, that he had not raised argument based on the statutes in the trial court, and that as a result the contentions were not available on appeal). Hopkins does not assert the court committed fundamental error.

[9] Waiver notwithstanding, we conclude that any error in admitting the challenged evidence was harmless. Ind. Appellate Rule 66(A) provides:

Harmless Error. No error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the trial court or by any of the parties is ground for granting relief or reversal on appeal where its probable impact, in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties.

[10] The Indiana Supreme Court held:

When an appellate court must determine whether a non-constitutional error is harmless, Rule 66(A)’s “probable impact test” controls. Under this test, the party seeking relief bears the burden of demonstrating how, in light of all the evidence in the case, the error's probable impact undermines confidence in the outcome of the proceeding below. See Mason v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1233, 1236-37 (Ind. 1997); [Edward W. Najam, Jr. & Jonathan B. Warner, Indiana's Probable-Impact Test for Reversible Error, 55 IND. L. REV. 27, 50-51 (2022)]. Importantly, this is not a review for the sufficiency of the remaining evidence; it is a review of what was presented to the trier of fact compared to what should have been presented. And when conducting that review, we consider the likely impact of the improperly admitted or excluded evidence on a reasonable, average jury in light of all the evidence in the case. See Tunstall v. Manning, 124 N.E.3d 1193, 1200 (Ind. 2019). Ultimately, the error's probable impact is sufficiently minor when—considering the entire record—our confidence in the outcome is not undermined.

Hayko v. State, 211 N.E.3d 483, 492 (Ind. 2023), reh'g denied, cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 570 (2024).

[11] The record reveals that Dyson and Hopkins argued at the storage facility, he told her to leave, and as she was exiting through the exterior door, he “grab[bed] [her] by the back of [her] neck ․ and squeezed.” Transcript Volume II at 134. Dyson testified, “I just jerked and turned towards him and said don't put your hands on me,” “[t]hen that is when he grabs me by my breasts, he pushes me backwards across the parking lot,” and “I was pushed backwards, I would say probably ten steps at least.” Id. She testified, “[h]e stood in the way of the door and continued to yell at me and then shoved me out of the way out of the door, opened the door, and shoved me in to the car.” Id. at 135. When asked what she saw, C.M. testified, “I seen [Hopkins] swing open her car door and then shove her into the car, and then slam the car door once she was in the vehicle.” Id. at 123. When asked about Hopkins's demeanor, she testified, “[d]efinitely enraged, very furious.” Id. Officer Skirvin testified that Hopkins told him that Dyson “came in there hostile and he just wanted her to leave.” Id. at 114. When asked, “[Hopkins] admitted to you that he pushed her,” he replied “[y]es.” Id. at 117.

[12] Hopkins testified that Dyson “just was always yapping at [him],” he asked her to leave three or four times, and “[s]he wasn't going to leave of her own accord.” Id. at 162-163. He testified, “I pushed her above her boobs, and I probably pushed her bra straps, that area.” Id. at 164. When asked, “[s]o you admit that you pushed her a couple of times,” he answered “[y]eah.” Id. On cross-examination, when asked, “[y]ou were mad,” Hopkins replied, “[y]es, I was mad,” and when asked “[s]o you grabbed her,” he stated, “I pushed her.” Id. at 169. When asked, “[y]ou pushed her out of the building, yes or no,” he answered, “[y]es,” and when asked, “[a]nd you did it multiple times,” he testified, “[o]nce by the back of the neck ․ and then I pushed her like that around my vehicle.” Id. at 169-170. In light of the record, we conclude that any error was harmless. See Fowler v. State, 279 N.E.3d 384, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2026) (“As the challenged evidence was merely cumulative of other evidence, Fowler has failed to show that the probable impact of the alleged erroneous admission of Betty's statements—considered in light of all the evidence— undermines confidence in the verdict. Any error was therefore harmless.”).

[13] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Hopkins's conviction for domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See State's Exhibit No. 1, Video File “1B.” The video shows Hopkins place his hands on Dyson and push her backwards.

2.   See State's Exhibit No. 1, Video Files “1A” and “1C.”

Brown, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.