Photographs and Videos

Admissibility: In general

• Indiana courts traditionally have stressed three requirements for the admission of photographic evidence.

Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied

• First, an adequate foundation must be laid.

Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied

• Relevancy is the second requirement for the admission of photographic evidence in Indiana.

Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied

• Finally, some Indiana cases require the photographs aid jurors' understanding of other evidence.

Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied

Admissibility: Laying an adequate foundation

• Before photographic evidence may be admitted, an adequate foundation must be laid.

Rogers v. State, 902 N.E.2d 871, 876 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)(citing Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied)

• The foundation required for admitting a photograph depends on its use at trial.

Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1282 (Ind. 2014), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 978 (2015)

Admissibility: Laying an adequate foundation for photographs that will be used as demonstrative evidence

• Generally, photographs and videotapes are treated as demonstrative evidence. “As such, a photograph is not evidence in itself, but is used merely as a nonverbal method of expressing a witness' testimony and is admissible only when a witness can testify it is a true and accurate representation of a scene personally viewed by that witness.”

Rogers v. State, 902 N.E.2d 871, 876 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)(quoting Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied)(emphasis added)

See Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1282 (Ind. 2014), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 978 (2015)(quoting Smith v. State, 491 N.E.2d 193, 195 (Ind. 1986))(emphasis added)(“In most cases, photos are only demonstrative, ‘visual aids that assist in the presentation and interpretation of testimony’—in which case ‘testimony . . . that [they] accurately depict the scene or occurrence as it appeared at the time in question’ is an adequate foundation.”)

• For more information about demonstrative evidence, please review Demonstrative Evidence.

Admissibility: Laying an adequate foundation for photographs that will be used as substantive evidence

• Under the silent witness theory, video recordings and photographic evidence may be admitted as substantive evidence, rather than merely as demonstrative evidence.

Pritchard v. State, 810 N.E.2d 758, 760 n. 3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)(citing Edwards v. State, 762 N.E.2d 128, 136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), aff’d on reh’g, 768 N.E.2d 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002))

See Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied(“The ‘silent witness theory’ for the admission of photographic evidence permits the use of photographs at trial as substantive evidence, as opposed to merely demonstrative evidence.”)

• When photographs are admitted as substantive evidence under the “silent witness theory,” . . . the foundational requirements for their admission are vastly different from the foundational requirements for demonstrative evidence.

Smith v. State, 491 N.E.2d 193, 196 (Ind. 1986)

See Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1282 (Ind. 2014), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 978 (2015)(quoting Smith v. State, 491 N.E.2d 193, 196 (Ind. 1986))(“For this ‘silent witness’ purpose, ‘the foundational requirements . . . are vastly different [than] the foundational requirements for demonstrative evidence.’”)

See also Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied(“The foundation requirements for the admission of photographs as substantive evidence under the silent witness theory are obviously vastly different from the foundation required for demonstrative evidence.”)

• The witness is not required to testify that the photograph is an accurate representation of the scene as it appeared on a given day. As a matter of fact, in many instances the witness would not be able to so testify since he or she was not necessarily there to observe the scene on that day.

Smith v. State, 491 N.E.2d 193, 196 (Ind. 1986)

See Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1282 (Ind. 2014), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 978 (2015)(quoting Smith v. State, 491 N.E.2d 193, 196 (Ind. 1986))(“In such cases, ‘[t]he witness is not required to testify that the photograph is an accurate representation of the scene as it appeared’—and indeed, often could not ‘so testify since he or she was not necessarily there to observe the scene on that day.’”)

• With substantive evidence the witness must give identifying testimony of the scene that appears in the photograph and the photograph is then a silent witness as to what activity is being depicted.

Smith v. State, 491 N.E.2d 193, 196 (Ind. 1986)

• [W]e feel it would be wrong to lay down extensive, absolute foundation requirements. . . . We therefore hold only that a strong showing of the photograph's competency and authenticity must be established.

Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied

See Wise v. State, 26 N.E.3d 137, 141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied(quoting Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied)(“Addressing solely the question of foundation, the Bergner Court hesitated to set forth ‘extensive, absolute foundation requirements,’ and instead required a ‘strong showing of the photograph's competency and authenticity.’”)

• Whether a sufficiently strong foundation has been laid is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, reviewable only for abuse. However, we stress our use of the adjective "strong." Photographs tend to have great probative weight and should not be admitted unless the trial court is convinced of their competency and authenticity to a relative certainty.

Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied

See Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1282 (Ind. 2014), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 978 (2015)(observing that the witness must give identifying testimony of the scene that appears in the photographs sufficient to persuade the trial court of their competency and authenticity to a relative certainty)

• We held that when offered for such a purpose there must be a strong showing of authenticity and competency including proof that the photograph has not been altered in any way.

Edwards v. State, 762 N.E.2d 128, 136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), aff’d on reh’g, 768 N.E.2d 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)(citing Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied)(emphasis added)

• This higher standard is applied in situations where there is no one who can testify as to its accuracy and authenticity because the photograph must “speak for itself” and because such a “silent witnesses” cannot be cross-examined.

Edwards v. State, 762 N.E.2d 128, 136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), aff’d on reh’g, 768 N.E.2d 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)(citing Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied)

• For example, in cases involving photographs taken by automatic cameras, there should be evidence as to how and when the camera was loaded, how frequently the camera was activated, when the photographs were taken, and the processing and chain of custody of the film after its removal from the camera.

Edwards v. State, 762 N.E.2d 128, 136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), aff’d on reh’g, 768 N.E.2d 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)

Admissibility: Relevancy

• To admit a photograph into evidence, a trial court must first determine the photograph is relevant.

Custis v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1220, 1224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied

See Timberlake v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1337, 1341 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)(citing Games v. State, 535 N.E.2d 530, 540 (Ind. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874 (1989))(“[T]he photograph must be relevant.”)

• Photographs are admissible if they are relevant to any material issue in the case; that is, if they tend to prove or disprove a material fact or shed any light on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Caley v. State, 650 N.E.2d 54, 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), reh’g denied, trans. denied(citing McCord v. State, 622 N.E.2d 504, 511 (Ind. 1993), reh’g denied)

• A photograph is relevant if it depicts a scene that a witness would be permitted to describe verbally.

Timberlake v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1337, 1341 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)(citing Games v. State, 535 N.E.2d 530, 540-41 (Ind. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874 (1989))

See McLean v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1344, 1347 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994)(citing Baird v. State, 604 N.E.2d 1170, 1189 (Ind. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 893 (1993))(“Photographs are relevant if they depict scenes that a witness is permitted to describe in their testimony.”)

• The relevancy requirement also can be met if the photographs demonstrate or illustrate a witness' testimony.

Turben v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1245, 1247 (Ind. 2000)(citing Harrison v. State, 699 N.E.2d 645, 648 (Ind. 1998))

Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 839 (Ind. 2000)(citing Harrison v. State, 699 N.E.2d 645, 648 (Ind. 1998))

• Photographs that depict a victim's injuries are generally relevant and thus admissible.

Turben v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1245, 1247 (Ind. 2000)(citing Harrison v. State, 699 N.E.2d 645, 648 (Ind. 1998))

Kellett v. State, 716 N.E.2d 975, 978 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)(citing Allen v. State, 686 N.E.2d 760, 776 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1073 (1999))(“Photographs depicting the victim's injuries . . . are generally relevant, and therefore admissible.”)

See Camm v. State, 812 N.E.2d 1127, 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied(citing Kubsch v. State, 784 N.E.2d 905, 923 (Ind. 2003))(“Generally, photographs depicting a victim's injuries, including showing a victim's wounds from different angles, . . . are relevant and therefore admissible.”)

• Photographs of a crime scene are relevant if they aid the trier of fact in orienting itself to the circumstances surrounding the crime.

Schnitz v. State, 650 N.E.2d 717, 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), aff’d on appeal(citing Baskin v. State, 546 N.E.2d 1191, 1192 (Ind. 1989))

Admissibility: Aiding jurors’ understanding of other evidence

• Whether this is truly a requirement for the admission of photographs in Indiana is not totally clear. Some cases seem to elevate it to the level of a requirement . . . while others merely recite it as a part of the relevancy test . . . .

Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied

• The Bergner Court observed that ‘some Indiana cases require the photographs aid jurors' understanding of other evidence,’ but expressed skepticism that this was necessary for admission in all cases.

Wise v. State, 26 N.E.3d 137, 141 n. 5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied(citing Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied)

Sheckles v. State, 24 N.E.3d 978, 986 n. 7 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied(citing Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), reh’g denied)

Admissibility: Balancing probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice

• Although a photograph may arouse the passions of the jurors, it is admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Albrecht v. State, 737 N.E.2d 719, 728 (Ind. 2000), reh’g denied(citing Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 406 (Ind. 2000), reh’g denied)

See Allen v. State, 925 N.E.2d 469, 476-77 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied(citing Helsley v. State, 809 N.E.2d 292, 296 (Ind. 2004))(“Photographs, as with all relevant evidence, may only be excluded if their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”)

See also Custis v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1220, 1224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied(quoting Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 627 (Ind. 2002))(“‘Relevant evidence, including photographs, may be excluded only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.’”)

See also Byers v. State, 709 N.E.2d 1024, 1028 (Ind. 1999)(quoting Evid. R. 403)(“To constitute error, the probative value of the photograph must be ‘substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice[.]’”)

Admissibility: Cumulative evidence

• To exclude photographs because they are cumulative, [the defendant] must show that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Wright v. State, 730 N.E.2d 713, 720 (Ind. 2000)(citing Harrison v. State, 699 N.E.2d 645, 647 (Ind. 1998))

• For more information about cumulative evidence, please review Cumulative Evidence.

Admissibility: Discretion of the trial court

• The admission or exclusion of photographic evidence lies within the trial court's discretion.

Swigeart v. State, 749 N.E.2d 540, 543 (Ind. 2001)

See Spry v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1167, 1171 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied(citing Edgecomb v. State, 673 N.E.2d 1185, 1196 (Ind. 1996), reh’g denied)(“The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether photographs in a particular case should be admitted and we review the admission of such photographs only for an abuse of discretion.”)

See also Prewitt v. State, 819 N.E.2d 393, 415 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied(citing Helsley v. State, 809 N.E.2d 292, 296 (Ind. 2004))(“[W]e note that the admission of photographic evidence is within the trial court's sound discretion and is reviewed only for an abuse of that discretion.”)

See also Salone v. State, 652 N.E.2d 552, 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), reh’g denied, trans. denied(citing Jackson v. State, 597 N.E.2d 950, 963 (Ind. 1992), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 507 U.S. 976 (1993))(“The admissibility of photographs is committed to the trial court's discretion and will be disturbed only for abuse of discretion.”)

See also Isaacs v. State, 659 N.E.2d 1036, 1043 (Ind. 1995), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 879 (1996)(citing Green v. State, 587 N.E.2d 1314, 1316 (Ind. 1992))(“Admission of photographs and videotapes lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.”)

Photographs of the crime scene and dead bodies

• “[G]enerally, photographs depicting the crime scene and victim's body are admissible as long as they are relevant and competent aids to the jury.”

Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 677 (Ind. 2013)(quoting Woods v. State, 677 N.E.2d 499, 504 (Ind. 1997))

See Ewing v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1221, 1225 (Ind. 1999), reh’g denied(“[P]hotographs depicting the crime scene are admissible as long as they are relevant and competent aids to the jury.”)

• Photographs of a crime scene are generally admissible because they are competent and relevant aids by which the jury can orient itself to best understand the evidence presented.

Scott v. State, 632 N.E.2d 761, 764 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994)(citing Wethington v. State, 560 N.E.2d 496, 506 (Ind. 1990))(emphasis added)

• “Photographs of a victim's corpse in a homicide case are relevant not only to prove his or her identity, but serve as an aid to understanding the pathologist's findings on the cause of death. Brown v. State, 503 N.E.2d 405, 409 (Ind. 1987). Photographs showing the victim in his or her natural state following death are relevant and admissible. Loy v. State, 436 N.E.2d 1125, 1228 (Ind. 1982).”

Woods v. State, 677 N.E.2d 499, 504 (Ind. 1997)(quoting Hughes v. State, 546 N.E.2d 1203, 1211 (Ind. 1989))

Gory, revolting, and gruesome photographs

• “Even gory and revolting photographs may be admissible as long as they are relevant to some material issue or show scenes that a witness could describe orally.”

Jackson v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1123, 1127 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied(quoting Amburgey v. State, 696 N.E.2d 44, 45 (Ind. 1998))

Swingley v. State, 739 N.E.2d 132, 133 (Ind. 2000)(quoting Amburgey v. State, 696 N.E.2d 44, 45 (Ind. 1998))

• Photographs, even ones gruesome in nature, are admissible if they act as interpretative aids for the jury and have strong probative value.

Spencer v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1053, 1057 (Ind. 1999)(citing Robinson v. State, 693 N.E.2d 548, 553 (Ind.1998))

See Ketcham v. State, 780 N.E.2d 1171, 1179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied(citing Swingley v. State, 739 N.E.2d 132, 133 (Ind. 2000))(“Photographs, even those gruesome in nature, are admissible if they act as demonstrative aids for the jury and have strong probative value.”)

• The fact that a photograph may depict gruesome details of a crime is not a sufficient basis for excluding it. The question is whether the probative value of the photograph outweighs its prejudicial effect.

Robinson v. State, 693 N.E.2d 548, 553 (Ind. 1998)(citing Isaacs v. State, 659 N.E.2d 1036, 1043 (Ind.1995), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 879 (1996))

Autopsy photographs: Definition and interpretation

• [An autopsy is a] medical examination of a corpse to determine the cause of death, esp[ecially] in a criminal investigation.

Black’s Law Dictionary ? (10th ed. 2009)

• Because the photograph was later identified by the pathologist who performed the autopsy as being an accurate depiction of [the victim], [the defendant] argues that the photograph was “in the nature of an autopsy photograph” and therefore inadmissible because the knife wounds shown in the photograph were not relevant to the finding of the cause of death. . . . A pathologist's testimony regarding a crime scene photograph does not transform it into an autopsy photograph.

Byers v. State, 709 N.E.2d 1024, 1028 n. 4 (Ind. 1999)(emphasis added)

Autopsy photographs: Test for admissibility

• “Autopsy photographs are admissible if (1) they provide relevant evidence, and (2) their probative value is not substantially outweighed by their tendency to impassion the jury against the defendant.”

Carrico v. State, 775 N.E.2d 312, 314 (Ind. 2002)(quoting Coy v. State, 720 N.E.2d 370, 375 (Ind. 1999))

Hatcher v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1155, 1160 (Ind. 2000)(quoting Malone v. State, 700 N.E.2d 780, 783 (Ind. 1998))

Malone v. State, 700 N.E.2d 780, 783 (Ind. 1998)(citing Edgecomb v. State, 683 N.E.2d 1185, 1186 (Ind. 1996), reh’g denied)

• Use of the photograph to illustrate the pathologist's testimony satisfies the initial relevancy requirement.

Malone v. State, 700 N.E.2d 780, 783 (Ind. 1998)

See Hornbostel v. State, 757 N.E.2d 170, 181 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied(citing Malone v. State, 700 N.E.2d 780, 783 (Ind. 1998))(“When such photographs are used to illustrate the pathologist's testimony, the initial relevancy requirement has been satisfied.”)

• The question then becomes one of balancing probative value against prejudicial effect . . . .

Malone v. State, 700 N.E.2d 780, 783 (Ind. 1998)

Hornbostel v. State, 757 N.E.2d 170, 181 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied(citing Malone v. State, 700 N.E.2d 780, 783 (Ind. 1998))

Autopsy photographs: Showing a body in an altered condition

• Autopsy photographs are generally inadmissible if they show the body in an altered condition.

Custis v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1220, 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied(citing Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 627 (Ind. 2002))

Turben v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1245, 1247 (Ind. 2000)(citing Allen v. State, 686 N.E.2d 760, 776 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1073 (1999))(“Indeed autopsy photographs are generally inadmissible if they show the body in an altered condition.”)

See Jackson v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1123, 1127-28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied(citing Swingley v. State, 739 N.E.2d 132, 133 (Ind. 2000))(“[A]utopsy photographs that depict the body in an altered state are generally inadmissible.”)

• This is so because the photographs may impute to the accused the handiwork of the pathologist and thereby render the defendant responsible in the minds of the jurors for the cuts, incisions, and indignity of an autopsy.

Custis v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1220, 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied(citing Turben v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1245, 1247 (Ind. 2000))

See Loy v. State, 436 N.E.2d 1125, 1128 (Ind. 1982)(“Such a display may impute the handiwork of the physician to the accused assailant and thereby render the defendant responsible in the minds of the jurors for the cuts, incisions, and indignity of an autopsy.”)

See also Jackson v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1123, 1127 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied(citing Swingley v. State, 739 N.E.2d 132, 133 (Ind. 2000))(“[M]anipulation of a corpse leads to concern that the work of a pathologist could be attributed to a defendant.”)

• Notwithstanding that general rule, there are situations where some alteration of the body is necessary to demonstrate the testimony being given.

Custis v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1220, 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied(citing Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 627 (Ind. 2002))

See Jackson v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1123, 1127 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied(quoting Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 627 (Ind. 2002))(“[S]ituations arise when the manipulation of a corpse is ‘necessary to demonstrate the testimony given.’”)

• For example[,] in Fentress v. State, we held admissible two photographs that depicted the victim's skull with the hair and skin pulled away from it. Because the pathologist had explained what he had done and the alteration was necessary to determine the extent of the victim's injuries, we found that the “potential for confusion [was] minimal” and that the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect.

Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 677 (Ind. 2013)(quoting Fentress v. State, 702 N.E.2d 721, 722 (Ind. 1998))

• We also found autopsy photographs depicting a body that had been altered to be admissible in Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 406 (Ind.2000), reh’g denied. The photograph at issue in Cutter depicted a pathologist's hand holding open the victim's vagina to display bruises that were relevant to the “by force” element of the rape charge. We stated this photograph was admissible because the “distortion was necessary to show the jury [the victim's] largely internal injury.”

Swingley v. State, 739 N.E.2d 132, 133-34 (Ind. 2000)(quoting Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 406 (Ind. 2000), reh’g denied)

• In Swingley v. State, 739 N.E.2d 132 (Ind. 2000), the defendant was convicted of murdering the victim by slashing his throat. At the State's request, the trial court admitted three autopsy photographs, two of which depicted the victim's gaping neck wound and one of which depicted the victim's windpipe or larynx removed from the body and lying on a sheet. On appeal, [the defendant] argued the trial court erred in admitting the photographs because the victim's body had been altered. Finding that the pathologist had done nothing to the body in the first two photographs other than clean the gaping wound and reposition the body, our supreme court held them properly admitted.

Custis v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1220, 1224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied(citing Swingley v. State, 739 N.E.2d 132, 134 (Ind. 2000))

Videotapes and video recordings: In general

• The standard applicable to the admissibility of photographs applies to videotapes.

Timberlake v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1337, 1340 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)(citing Meisberger v. State, 640 N.E.2d 716, 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied)

Videotapes and video recordings: Extension of the silent witness theory to video recordings

• The “silent witness” theory has continued in use since its adoption by Indiana courts in 1979, and has since been extended to the use of video recordings.

Wise v. State, 26 N.E.3d 137, 141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied

Sheckles v. State, 24 N.E.3d 978, 986 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied