Robert D. Goodwin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 8, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-275
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 08 2019, 7:10 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Elizabeth A. Bellin Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Elkhart, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Ellen H. Meilaender Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Robert D. Goodwin, August 8, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-275 v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Stephen R. Appellee-Plaintiff Bowers, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 20D02-1805-F5-160

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-275 | August 8, 2019 Page 1 of 10 [1] Robert D. Goodwin appeals his conviction of Level 5 felony carrying a

handgun without a license. 1 Goodwin argues the trial court abused its

discretion when it admitted video evidence of him discussing an outstanding

warrant in an unrelated matter, because the admission of that evidence violated

Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) and the trial court’s order in limine. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On May 21, 2018, Officer Jared Davis and Officer Lauren Adams, who were in

separate cars, were conducting surveillance on a known drug house. As they

were conducting surveillance, they observed a maroon Chrysler driving away

from the house. The vehicle presented two infractions that could justify a traffic

stop: (1) portions of the license plate were unreadable from less than fifty feet

during the day, because the plate was affixed beneath a dark-tinted plastic

holder; and (2) the vehicle failed to signal its intention to turn left at least 200

feet prior to turning. Officer Davis initiated a traffic stop.

[3] As soon as Officer Davis turned on his emergency lights, the passenger door of

the vehicle opened, and the passenger jumped out before the vehicle came to a

complete stop and ran away extremely quickly. Officer Davis observed the

fleeing passenger to be an African-American male, with dreadlocks, wearing a

blue/white/black striped jacket. Officer Davis radioed that the passenger was

1 Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1 (2017).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-275 | August 8, 2019 Page 2 of 10 fleeing from the stop, but he was staying with the driver of the car. Officer

Davis also reported identifying information about the fleeing passenger.

[4] Officer Adams was close to the area, so she began looking for the passenger

who fled. She briefly lost sight of the passenger as he ran between an alley and

a house, but she was flagged down by a frantic resident waving, pointing, and

stating “he’s running that way.” (App. Vol. II at 15.) Officer Adams turned

onto the next street and observed an African-American male, with dreadlocks,

wearing a blue/white/black striped jacket, walking normally down the street.

Officer Adams approached the individual in order to investigate and ordered

the individual, later identified as Goodwin, to his knees and handcuffed him.

[5] Seconds after detaining Goodwin, a witness called Dispatch stating she saw an

African-American male, wearing a blue/white/black striped jacket, remove a

silver handgun with black grips from his waist band. Officers located two

handguns nearby, and one of them matched the caller’s description. The two

handguns were seized as evidence, and officers arrested Goodwin for carrying a

handgun without a license. A criminal history report on Goodwin revealed a

prior felony conviction for carrying a handgun without a license.

[6] On May 24, 2018, the State charged Goodwin with Class A misdemeanor

carrying a handgun without a license. Due to his prior conviction of possession

of a handgun without a license, the State filed an Information alleging

Goodwin was subject to enhancement of his crime to a Level 5 felony. Prior to

trial, Goodwin moved for the court to exclude:

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-275 | August 8, 2019 Page 3 of 10 1. Any character evidence regarding Defendant in the following forms: (1) other wrongs; (2) prior bad acts; and (3) non- charged conduct or criminal offenses not reduced to convictions and admissible pursuant to Indiana Rules of Evidence 404(b) or 609;

(Id. at 30). After hearing arguments on the motion, the trial court granted

Goodwin’s motion in limine.

[7] On December 11, 2018, a jury was impaneled and trial began. During trial, the

State moved to admit a video from Officer Adams’ body camera. Defense

counsel objected to the entire video on relevance grounds and to a portion of

the video on Evidence Rule 404(b) grounds because in a portion Goodwin

referenced a warrant from an unrelated matter. Specifically, in those four

seconds, Goodwin said, “I thought I had a warrant.” (Tr. Vol. III at 22.) The

court overruled the relevance objection and admitted the video with the four

seconds that reference the warrant redacted. Before the video was played for

the jury, however, defense counsel notified the court that Goodwin insisted the

entire video be published to the jury without redaction, which was contrary to

counsel’s advice. After confirming Goodwin truly wanted the entire video to be

published, the trial court played the entire video for the jury.

[8] At the close of trial, the jury found Goodwin guilty of carrying a handgun

without a license. Subsequently, Goodwin pled guilty to having a prior

handgun conviction, which elevated his conviction to a Level 5 felony. The

trial court sentenced Goodwin to an aggravated sentence of five-and-a-half

years.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-275 | August 8, 2019 Page 4 of 10 Discussion and Decision [9] The admission or exclusion of evidence rests within the sound discretion of the

trial court, and we review for an abuse of discretion. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d

864, 871 (Ind. 2012), reh’g denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the

decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances

before it, id., and the decision will not be disturbed absent a requisite showing

of abuse. Id.

[10] Goodwin asserts the trial court violated Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) and its

own in limine order when it admitted video evidence in which Goodwin refers

to the existence of a warrant for him in an unrelated matter. Rule 404(b)(1)

provides: “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a

person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person

acted in accordance with the character.” Such evidence may, however, be

admissible to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,

identity, absence of mistake or lack of accident.” Evid. R. 404(b)(2).

[11] In deciding whether to admit Rule 404(b) evidence, a trial court must: (1)

determine that the evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is relevant to a

matter at issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the charged act;

and (2) balance the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect

pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 403. Freed v. State, 954 N.E.2d 526, 530

(Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Rule 403 provides in part that “[a]lthough relevant,

evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-275 | August 8, 2019 Page 5 of 10 the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.”

The trial court is afforded wide latitude in weighing probative value against

prejudice under Rule 403. Freed, 954 N.E.2d at 531.

[12] We will reverse the court’s evaluation and decision to admit or exclude

evidence only on a showing of an abuse of discretion. Id. Even if the

admission is an abuse of discretion, “we will not reverse if the admission of

evidence constituted harmless error.” Micheau v. State, 893 N.E.2d 1053, 1059

(Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Fox v. State, 717 N.E.2d 957, 966 (Ind. Ct. App.

1999), reh’g denied, trans. denied), trans. denied. Error is harmless if “the

conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt as to satisfy

the reviewing court that there is no substantial likelihood that the questioned

evidence contributed to the conviction.” Cook v. State, 734 N.E.2d 563, 569

(Ind. 2000), reh’g denied.

[13] Here, the trial court initially admitted the video evidence with the four-second

portion redacted. (Tr. Vol. III at 23.) However, Goodwin then insisted the

entire video be played without redaction:

Mr. Banik: Contrary to my good advice, my client is asking that we play the entire video, start to finish, no redactions, no nothing. The Court: I’m sorry? Mr. Banik: Contrary to my good advice, my client has directed that he wants the entire video played and if not during [Officer Adams’] case then we’re going to play the whole thing during his. No redaction. No portions.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-275 | August 8, 2019 Page 6 of 10 The Court: I think we need to make a record on that outside of the presence of the jury.

*****

Mr. Banik: Robert, I’ve indicated to you that I think parts of the video, in particular, a part that says—well you tell the officer you thought you had a warrant, ought to be not played for the jury. Do you understand that? Do you understand that’s what I told you. Mr. Goodwin: Yes. Mr. Banik: And you’re saying that you strongly disagree with that and you want the whole video, no redactions, 100% start to finish to come in to the jury? Mr. Goodwin: Yes, cause my knowledge that I didn’t—this is a surprise to me. It never was in my motion discovery (sic). I haven’t seen- The Court: You need to speak up. I’m still having trouble hearing you. Mr. Goodwin: I haven’t seen the video that they are talking about.

The Court: That’s not the question. At this point [what] we’re trying to figure out Mr. Goodwin is whether the video which has been identified by the State is going to be played for the jury or not. Mr. Banik has objected partially on grounds of relevancy. I’ve overruled that objection because it goes to the question of your identity. He has also objected because one of the portions of that exhibit or one of the portions of that video is a reference to a warrant, which is obviously a reference to another charge, which would not normally be admissible against you and which could prejudice you in the eyes of the jury and so Mr. Banik is making that objection. What you have indicated

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-275 | August 8, 2019 Page 7 of 10 here is you want them to see the entire video even though there might be a legal objection. That’s where we were until you said you hadn’t seen any videos. Mr. Goodwin: I haven’t seen any video. The Court: So my question is, how do you know that you want the jury to see the entire video if you’re saying you have not seen it at all because frankly, I don’t make— I don’t think that makes any sense. Mr. Goodwin: But if you just going to show partial of it, I haven’t seen that either. I haven’t seen any videos of it. The Court: Well Mr.—Mr. Banik says you have and you say that you haven’t. I’m not going to resolve that issue today. What I’m going to say is this, do you—are you insisting that the jury see this entire video, which you claim you haven’t seen? Are you asking me to make that ruling in this case? Mr. Goodwin: Yes Your Honor.

(Id. at 24, 25-29.)

[14] Goodwin attempts to construe the issue on appeal as being about “hybrid

representation,” 2 but the record clearly indicates that any error that occurred

was invited by Goodwin himself. “The doctrine of invited error is grounded in

estoppel and precludes a party from taking advantage of an error that he or she

commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his or her own neglect

or misconduct.” Balicki v. Balicki, 837 N.E.2d 532, 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005),

2 Hybrid representation occurs when “the duties of trial advocacy are shared by a defendant and his attorney, or when a defendant proceeds pro se with an attorney in an advisory capacity.” See Swinehart v. State, 376 N.E.2d 486, 490 (Ind. 1978) (citing Bradberry v. State, 266 N.E.2d 538, 537 (Ind. 1977)).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-275 | August 8, 2019 Page 8 of 10 trans. denied. The trial court initially admitted the video with the four seconds of

Evidence Rule 404(b) evidence redacted. Goodwin himself, against the advice

of counsel, insisted the trial court change that ruling and admit the entire video.

We cannot conclude the trial court erred when it admitted the unredacted video

at Goodwin’s insistence, and Goodwin cannot now allege that admission was

error. See Dennerline v. Atterholt, 886 N.E.2d 582, 596 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)

(appellant invited the error when he consented to the striking of his setoff

defense and to the exclusion of evidence regarding settlements with nonparties;

thus, those issues were waived on appeal), reh’g denied, trans. dismissed.

[15] Even if Goodwin had not invited the error, the admission was harmless because

the evidence of Goodwin’s guilt was too strong for the verdict to be impacted

by his four-second reference to the warrant. Goodwin was identified as the

person who rapidly fled from the traffic stop, and police located him a block or

so away from the traffic stop. (Tr. Vol. III at 19-20.) A witness positively

identified Goodwin as the man she saw outside her house, and police found

nearby the gun she described as being in Goodwin’s possession. (Tr. Vol. II at

204-06, 207.) We are confident the jury would have found Goodwin possessed

that gun even if those four seconds had been redacted from the video. See Fox,

717 N.E.2d at 966 (defendant failed to establish harm because the trial court’s

admission of the video tape was cumulative and not the only direct evidence of

the events because two witnesses testified at trial).

Conclusion Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-275 | August 8, 2019 Page 9 of 10 [16] Because Goodwin invited any error that occurred and any error was harmless

in light of the evidence against Goodwin, we affirm.

[17] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-275 | August 8, 2019 Page 10 of 10