Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before 

any court except for the purpose of 

establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the 

case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

KURT A. YOUNG GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Nashville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

CYNTHIA L. PLOUGHE

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

DARRELL WOODRUFF, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 49A02-1203-CR-247

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Reuben B. Hill, Judge

Cause No. 49F18-1112-FD-85047

December 10, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BROWN, Judge
2

Darrell Woodruff appeals his convictions for criminal recklessness as a class D

felony1and resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor.

2

 Woodruff raises one 

issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the 

recording of a telephone call. We affirm. 

On the evening of December 2, 2011, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer 

Andrew Tyler received a dispatch to an apartment in response to a 911 call reporting that 

a person had been stabbed and that the suspect was on the scene. Officer Tyler arrived at 

the apartment, and Duane Riding identified himself and showed the officer a small 

puncture wound in the center of his chest. Riding pointed to Woodruff, who was walking 

down a hallway away from Riding and Officer Tyler and indicated that Woodruff had cut 

him. Officer Tyler drew his weapon and ordered Woodruff to stop, remove his hands 

from his pockets, and place his hands against the wall. Woodruff initially complied, but 

as Officer Tyler approached, Woodruff became aggravated and took his hands off of the 

wall. Officer Tyler repeated the command for Woodruff to place his hands on the wall. 

Woodruff dropped his hands to his side, began to approach Officer Tyler quickly and in 

an aggressive manner, and told Officer Tyler to shoot him. Officer Tyler took a step back 

and repeated his command to stop, but Woodruff continued to approach. When

Woodruff approached within five feet of Officer Tyler, the officer kicked Woodruff in 

the abdomen, pulled him to the ground, and placed him in handcuffs. Officer Tyler then 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-2-2 (Supp. 2004). 

2

Ind. Code § 35-44-3-3 (Supp. 2011) (now found at Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1) (subsequently 

amended by Pub. L. No. 126-2012, §§ 53, 54 (eff. Jul. 1, 2012)). 
3

checked Woodruff for weapons and discovered a kitchen knife with a white handle in the 

right pocket of Woodruff’s jeans, and noticed that Woodruff was intoxicated. 

On December 6, 2011, the State charged Woodruff with criminal recklessness as a 

class D felony and resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor. At the bench 

trial, the court admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit VI, over Woodruff’s objection on 

the basis that the State failed to lay a foundation, a recording of a telephone call which 

had been placed from the Marion County Jail. The court found Woodruff guilty as 

charged and sentenced him to 365 days for the class D felony and ninety days for the 

class A misdemeanor and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. 

The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the phone call 

recording. The admission and exclusion of evidence is a matter within the sound 

discretion of the trial court, and we will review only for an abuse of discretion. Wilson v. 

State, 765 N.E.2d 1265, 1272 (Ind. 2002). An abuse of discretion occurs “where the 

decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Smith v. 

State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind. 2001). “Errors in the admission or exclusion of 

evidence are to be disregarded as harmless error unless they affect the substantial rights 

of a party.” Fleener v. State, 656 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ind. 1995) (citations omitted). 

Woodruff contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the 

recording because the recording was not properly authenticated, that the admission 

cannot be harmless, and that this court should reverse the conviction and direct the entry 

of a judgment of acquittal. He argues that the evidence shows that before making a 

collect call an inmate was required to enter a PIN, that an inmate could figure out another 
4

inmate’s PIN, and that the State failed to show that it was a reasonable probability that 

the recording was a telephone call from Woodruff. Woodruff asserts that the caller’s 

voice was not shown to be Woodruff’s voice, that it was not established that Woodruff’s 

PIN had not been compromised, and that the State chose not to call as a witness the 

person who had received the call from the jail in order to authenticate the recording. 

The State maintains that the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the 

recording and that there was ample evidence to identify the caller as Woodruff. The State 

points to the fact that the custodian of the call recordings testified that the inmate 

information for State’s Exhibit VI was written on the disk. The State also argues that 

Woodruff identified himself at the beginning of the call and provided information during 

the conversation that revealed himself to be Woodruff, namely, stating the victim’s first 

name two times, that he had been drinking that night, that he had a knife, that he had been 

incarcerated since Friday, which was the date Woodruff had been arrested, that his bond 

was in the amount of $30,000, and that he had been charged with criminal recklessness. 

Ind. Evidence Rule 901(a) provides that “[t]he requirement of authentication or 

identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient 

to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Absolute 

proof of authenticity is not required. Fry v. State, 885 N.E.2d 742, 748 (Ind. Ct. App.

2008), trans. denied. When evidence establishes a reasonable probability that an item is 

what it is claimed to be, the item is admissible. Thomas v. State, 734 N.E.2d 572, 573 

(Ind. 2000). When a trial court has made a ruling concerning the sufficiency of the 

foundation laid to justify the admission of evidence, we review that decision for an abuse 
5

of discretion. Id. (citing State v. Walton, 715 N.E.2d 824, 828 (Ind. 1999)). Ind. 

Evidence Rule 901(b) provides “[b]y way of illustration only, and not by way of 

limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with 

the requirements of this rule” and includes:

Telephone conversations. Telephone conversations, by evidence that a call 

was made to the number assigned at the time by the telephone company to a 

particular person or business, if (i) in the case of a person, circumstances, 

including self-identification, show the person answering to be the one 

called, or (ii) in the case of a business, the call was made to a place of 

business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted 

over the telephone.

Ind. Evidence Rule 901(b)(6). 

The record reveals that State’s Exhibit VI is labeled “Inmate: Darrell Woodruff”

and also includes the information “Date: 12/06/2011” and “Time: 10:17.” The State 

called Lieutenant Bryce Wolf of the Marion County Sheriff’s Office as a witness, and 

Lieutenant Wolf testified that he is the custodian and designated keeper of records for the 

inmate telephone system, that State’s Exhibit VI is a compact disc on which an inmate 

telephone call had been burned, that the handwriting on the disc was his handwriting, that 

inmates are required to enter an eleven-digit PIN which is comprised of the person’s 

booking number and month and day of birth, and that the PIN and booking numbers are 

unique for each stay in the jail. 

The recording of the jail phone call reveals that the caller placed a collect call, 

identified himself in doing so as Darrell Woodruff, referred to the victim as Duane at 

least two times, and indicated that Duane had stolen his leather coat. Further, the caller 

stated that he had been drinking at the time of the altercation, that he had a knife, that he 
6

thought he was being held for criminal recklessness, that he had been locked up since 

Friday night, and that his bond had been set in the amount of $30,000. The caller also 

stated that his court date was the following day in courtroom 18. 

Officer Tyler testified that Duane Riding identified himself as the victim and that a 

search using Riding’s name and date of birth indicated that Riding had a valid driver’s 

license confirming his identity. Officer Tyler further testified that Woodruff was 

intoxicated at the time he was taken into custody and that Officer Tyler had discovered a 

small knife in Woodruff’s pocket. The record shows that Woodruff was arrested on 

December 2, 2011, which was a Friday, and that the proceedings against Woodruff 

occurred in Marion County Superior Court, Criminal Division, Room 18. Further, the 

chronological case summary indicates that the trial court ordered that bond be set in the 

amount of $30,000, that a hearing was held on the morning of December 7, 2011, and 

Woodruff was charged with criminal recklessness as a class D felony. 

Based upon the record, we conclude that the State established a reasonable 

probability that the recording is what it is claimed to be, a recording of a phone call by 

Woodruff, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recording into 

evidence. See Thomas, 734 N.E.2d at 574 (holding that the trial court did not err in 

admitting a recording of a phone call into evidence and that the circumstantial evidence 

was sufficient to authenticate the recording and noting in part that the caller identified 

himself, gave a detailed statement concerning the events leading up to, during, and after a 

shooting, and made reference to his involvement in the shooting). 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Woodruff’s convictions. 
7

Affirmed. 

BAILEY, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.