Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A05

- 1604

- CR

- 779 | October 31, 2017 Page 1 of 13



### MEMORANDUM DECISION 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.
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Matthew J. McGovern Anderson, IN A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Angela N. Sanchez Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, IN



### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIA NA
Clair Eugene Chaplin , Appellant

- Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff October 31, 2017 Court of Appeals Case No. 31A05

- 1604

- CR

- 779 Appea l from the Harrison Superior Court The Honorable Joseph L. Claypool, Judge Trial Co urt Cause No. 31D01

- 1507

- MR

- 424

Vaidik , Chief Judge .Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A05

- 1604

- CR

- 779 | October 31, 2017 Page 2 of 13 

# Case Summary
[1] Clair Eugene Chaplin appeals his murder conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a cellular

- forensics analyst, who testified concerning the likely locations of Chaplin’s cell phone during the twenty

- six

hour period surrounding the victim’s death. We need not reach this issue. Even if the trial court err ed in admitting the analyst’s testimony, we are satisfied that Chaplin’s conviction is supported by independent evidence of guilt such that there is no substantial likelihood that the analyst’s testimony contributed to the jury’s verdict . Accordingly, any error is harmless. We therefore affirm Chaplin’s murder conviction.



# Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2014, Chaplin and his wife of twenty

- seven years, Paula, were living in New Albany in Floyd County

. New Albany is in southern Indiana on the Ohio River. That summer , Paula let Geneieve Rogge move into their home. Paula was friends with Geneieve’s mother and had known Geneieve since she was a young girl. Geneieve was addicted to heroin, and Paula thought that she could help Geneieve beat her addiction. After Geneieve had been living at Paula and Chaplin’s house for about six months, Paula caught Chaplin and Geneieve in bed together. Paula kicked Geneieve out of their house

.
[3] Chaplin and Geneieve continued their sexual relatio nship. Because it appeared that Paula and Chaplin might get a divorce, Chaplin’s boss , Chuck Jones, toldCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A05

- 1604

- CR

- 779 | October 31, 2017 Page 3 of 13

Chaplin that he could stay at a travel trailer that was parked behind a
wa rehouse that he owned on Corydon Pike Road in New Albany . Chaplin , however, let Geneieve stay there. Chaplin became Geneieve’s “sugar daddy , ” g iving her heroin, a car, a cell phone, clothes, and money

— “just enough [of the] things that she didn’t have.” Tr. p. 321.

[4] But things quickly changed in April 2015 when Geneieve’s boyfriend, Mark Smith, was released from jail after serving a one

- year sentence. Geneieve and Mark resumed their relationshi p, and Chaplin became jealous of the younger Mark . Chaplin complained to Geneieve’s best friend , Robin Bethards , that he did not understand why Geneieve want ed to be with Mark because Mark could not give her the things that he could

. Mark knew that Geneieve was also having a sexual relationship with Chaplin, but he decided to let things “play out” until he got back on his feet and could get a place for the two of them to live

. Id. at 386.

[5] Around the middle of June , Chaplin invited Mark to lunch. The two men met “at White Castles” and concocted a plan to “corner” Geneieve and make her choose between them

. Id. at 387. The next day , Chaplin and Mark executed their plan , and Geneieve declared that she loved Mark and wanted to marry him and that she was “just friends” with Chaplin. Id. at 388.

[6] On Saturday, June 27, Chaplin tried several times t o get a hold of Geneieve. His texts to her started out harmless, such as “ Hey, where you at? I want to pick you up” and “Hey, where you at? I need to pick you up. We got things toCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A05

- 1604

- CR

- 779 | October 31, 2017 Page 4 of 13

do.” Id. at 608. When Geneieve did not respond, Chaplin texted both Robin and Mark looking for her

. Chaplin also stopped by Robin ’s house unannounced, which was unusual

. According to Robin, Chaplin was “irritated.” Id. at 361. When Chaplin still could not get in touch with Geneieve, the tenor of his texts changed. They now read, “Some kind of girlf riend. Won’t even call me back or text me,” “This is a crock of s***. You won’t call me back or text me,” and “Are you having a good time with Mark?” Id. at 608

- 09 ; see also Ex. 11A

. 1

[7] In the meantime, as Chaplin sus pected, Geneieve was wit h Mark. Mark had picked up Geneieve around 3 p.m. They went to the r iver, shot some heroin, and “made love” on a blanket. Tr. p. 389. They then drove around town
. While they were driving around, Robin texted Mark to let him know that Chaplin was looking for Geneieve and that Chaplin suspected the two of them were together. Mark and Geneieve returned to the river, where they shot more heroin and “made love again” on a blanket. Id. at 391. When it was starting to get dark, Mark dropped off Geneie ve a couple blocks away from the travel trailer on Corydon Pike Road. Geneieve did not want Mark to drop her off at the trailer because she knew that Chaplin had been looking for her

. Because Geneieve did not have keys to the trailer, she texted Chaplin several times between 9 and 10 p.m. asking him to come let her in.

1 Chaplin deleted the call log and text messages dated S aturday, June 27 , from his cell phone

. See Tr. p. 612. Detective Smith obtained the text messages from Chaplin’s cell

- phone company , Verizon

.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A05

- 1604

- CR

- 779 | October 31, 2017 Page 5 of 13

[8] Around 9 p.m., Chaplin and Paula rented several movies at Family Video

. They returned home and had just started the first movie when Chaplin abruptly told Paula that the movie was “no go od” and left. Id. at 461. He told Paula that he was going to the warehouse to work. Paula did not see or hear from Chap lin again that night. About twenty minutes after Mark dropped off Geneieve, she called him to let him know that Chaplin was on his way to let her in the travel trailer. That was the last time that Mark heard from Geneieve.

[9] Paula next heard from Chaplin on Sunday morning, when he called and asked her to meet him for breakfast at Waffle House at 8:30 a.m. When t hey met, Paula not ice d “ marks down [ Chaplin’s ] neck and bruises on his chin and a place on his arm. ” Id. at 465. He also had a “big wide” bandage across his right arm. Id. Chaplin, who did not have these injuries the night before, told Paula that he fe ll at the warehouse

.
[10] That Sunday afternoon , an Indiana Conservation Officer responded to a 911 caller who had located a female body in the Ohio River near the boat ramp at Morvin ’ s Landing in Mauckport in Harrison County , which is west of Floyd County

. The body was dressed in only a bra and underwear. The c onservation
o fficer contacted the Harrison County Sheriff’s Department. The conservation officer immediately noticed injuries to the body, including “purplish, reddish marks” on the neck, a “dark purplish color” to the face , and a distinct pattern of lividity to the back side (lines that met in a “V”) , all of which were inconsistent with accidental death by drowning. Id. at 96. The body was transported to Harrison County Hospital for an auto psy , which was conducted on June 30.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A05

- 1604

- CR

- 779 | October 31, 2017 Page 6 of 13

During the autopsy, tattoos on the body were compared to driver’s license photographs in the BMV database, and the body was identified as Geneieve’s. A second autopsy was conducted on July 1 in Louisville. The forensic pathologist determined that t he ca use of death was strangulation ; the pathologist also noted m ult iple blunt

- force injuries to Geneieve’s head, neck, torso, and extremities. T he pathologist opined that the pattern of lividity to Geneieve’s backsid e indicated that she was l ying on a hard surface before she was found in the water.

[11] As soon as the first autopsy was completed on June 30, Harrison County Sheriff’s Department D etective Nick Smith began contacting Geneieve ’s friends . When Detect ive Smith called Chaplin, he initially did not tell him that Geneieve was dead; instead, he asked Chaplin when he had last seen her. Chaplin responded that he had last seen Geneieve on Saturday morning. Detective Smith asked Chaplin if he could go to the travel trailer to see Gene ieve’s personal belongings. Chaplin , however, said that he had gone to the trailer on Saturday night and that her belongings had already been “removed.” Id. at 518. Chaplin spoke of Geneieve in the past tense, which “stood out” to the detective since he had not yet told Chaplin about Geneieve’s death

. Id. at 495. Chaplin asked D etective Smith not to tell his wife about their conversation or about his relationship with Geneieve. When Detective Smith finally to ld Chaplin that Geneieve was dead, Chaplin displayed “[ n ] o emotion ,” as opposed to Mark and Robin, who cried and were hysterical when they were told about Geneieve ’s dea th

. Id. at 51 3

- 1 4. D etective Smith calledCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A05

- 1604

- CR

- 779 | October 31, 2017 Page 7 of 13

Chaplin back later that day and asked him to come in for an interview , but Chaplin said that he was on his way to Florida and had already driven too far to turn around

. T he detective , however, spoke with Paula, who said that Chaplin was on his way to West Virginia to visit family , not Florida

. I n any event, during this second phone call with D etective Smith , Chaplin claimed that he did not enter the travel trailer until Sunday or Monday. D etective Smith contacted Chaplin’s boss, Chuck , who gave h i m permission to search the trailer.

[12] Upon searching the travel trailer, Detective Smith observed signs of a struggle inside. There were red fibers everywhere. A decorative glass lamp shade was missing from a wall sconce and a fire extinguisher had been removed from its mount and was lying o n the floor. A set of blinds was missing from a window. In addition, there w ere blood stain s on the floor beneath the missing lamp shade and on the wall beneath the fire

- extinguisher mount
. Blood stains were also found elsewhere on the floor, on the cou ch, and on a couch pillow. Finally, there were blood stains and broken piece s of decorative glass in the bathroom sink

. It was later determined that t he blood on the wall by the fire

extinguisher mount and in the sink contained Chaplin’s DNA and that t he blood on the couch and the pillow contained a mix ture of Chaplin’s and Geneieve’s DNA.

[13] Detective Smith also searched the warehouse near the travel trailer . He found a bucket of cleaning supplies that Chuck did not recognize. Inside the bucket was a red

- colored feather duster that was consistent with the red fibers discoveredCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A05

- 1604

- CR

- 779 | October 31, 2017 Page 8 of 13

inside the trailer. Chaplin’s older model red

- and

- white

- striped Ford F

- 150 truck was also inside the warehouse. Detective Smith noticed that a portion of the bed liner was cleaner than the rest and that there was standing water in the truck bed. According to Detective Smith, it appeared that a power washer had been used. Detective Smith also noticed that Chaplin’s bed liner had a distinct “V” pattern, causing him to immediately s ay , “That’s the hard object that created th [e] lividity” on Geneieve’s body. Id. at 579.

[14] Detective Smith also searched a dumpster at a different property that Chuck owned and where Chaplin also did some work . Detective Smith found a set of blinds i nside the dumpster that matched the set that w as missing from the travel trailer. The blinds contained blood stains that were later determined to contain Chaplin’s DNA

.
[15] Based on the investigation, Detective Smith believed that Geneieve’s body had been “ dumped somewhere along the banks of the Ohio River on the Indiana side ” and that Chaplin was responsible for her death

. Id. at 730. Accordingly, he contacted Horseshoe Southern Indiana casino to obtain its surveillance video to see if Chaplin’s distinct

- looking truck had passed by , as that was the most direct route to the Ohio River

. After reviewing “[h]ours and hours and hours” of video, Detective Smith located a truck that appeared to be Chaplin’s driving west on Highway 111 at 11:36 p.m. in the direc tion of Evans Landing, a twenty
- four

- hour accessible boat ramp. Id. at 733. As the truck passed the casino, a large, light colored object was visible in the truck bed. At 12:25 a.m., Detective Smith located the same truck driving east on Highway 111. D ue toCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A05

- 1604

- CR

- 779 | October 31, 2017 Page 9 of 13

the angle of the camera, it could not be determined whether the object was still in the truck bed. See id. at 737.

[16] Chaplin was arrested on July 15 and charged with Geneieve’s murder . At the time of his arrest, Detective Smith took pictures of Chaplin’s injuries , which
were in the healing stages
. One of the injuries was a bite mark to his right arm. Ex s . 17D & 17 E. The bite mark was consistent with a human bite mark and “in a loca tion that in a case of strangulation [is] where you [would] expect to see a human bite, if the individual is able to fight back.” Tr. p. 874.

[17] A jury trial was held in January 2016

. At trial, the State called Justin Ogden, a cellular

- forensic s analyst from Virginia , to provide the likely locations of Chaplin’s cell phone during the twenty

- six

- hour period surrounding Geneieve’s death. Ogden t estified that he took data from Chaplin’s cell

- phone company , Verizon , including where a given cell tower/site was located, which side of the tower was used for a particular transaction, and the distance of Chaplin’s cell phone from the tower for each transaction

. See id. at 671. He then used that data to c o me up with defined areas o n a map, which he called “l ikely areas ,” for Chaplin’s cell phone during th at twenty
- six

- hour period. Ogden generated approximately twenty

- three maps in this case; some maps covered time ranges while other maps covered a specific minute

. T hese “likely ar eas” contained the following locations of Chaplin’s cell phone relevant to Geneieve’s murder :
8:40

- 8:53 p.m. (Saturday, June 27) : Family Video 8:56 p.m.: Chaplin’s home with PaulaCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A05

- 1604

- CR

- 779 | October 31, 2017 Page 10 of 13

8:59

- 10:21 p.m.: Chaplin’s home with Paula
10:35

- 11:16 p.m. : Corydon Pike Road near travel trailer
11:26

- 11:27 p.m.: Highway 111 moving west 11:36 p.m.: Horseshoe Southern Indiana casino
11:44

- 11:58 p.m.: Highway 111 moving west
12:01 a.m. (Sunday, June 28) : Highway 111 near Evans Landing
12:04

- 12:36 a.m.: Highway 111 moving east
12:58

- 1:23 a.m.: Corydon Pike Road near travel trailer
2:24

- 7:01 a.m.: Chaplin’s home with Paula
7:32

- 8:05 a.m.: Corydon Pike Road near travel trailer
8:13

- 9:27 a.m.: Waffle House The jury found Chaplin guilty of murder , and the trial court sentenced him to fifty

- six years.

[18] Chaplin now appeals.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A05

- 1604

- CR

- 779 | October 31, 2017 Page 11 of 13 

# Discussion and Decision
[19] Chaplin contends that the trial court err oneously admitted Ogden’s testimony concerning the likely locations of Chaplin’s cell phone during the twenty

- six

hour period surrounding Geneieve’s death in violation of Indiana Evidence Rule 702(a) and (b)

. We need not address this issue, however, because even if the trial court erred in admitting O gden’s testimony , we find that any error is harmless.

[20] N ot every trial error requires reversal. See Lewis v. State , 34 N.E.3d 240, 248 (Ind. 2015). That is, t he erroneous admission of evidence does not require reversal unless i t prejudices the defendant’s substantial rights. Blount v. State , 22 N.E.3d 559, 564 ( Ind. 2014). To determine whether an error in the introduction of evidence affected the defendant’s substantial rights, we assess the probable impact of th at evidence upon the jury considering all the other evidence that was properly presented. Id. If we are satisfied that the conviction is supported by independent evidence of guilt such that there is no substantial likelihood that the challenged evidence contributed to the verdict , the error is harmless. Id.

[21] The record shows that Chaplin had a sexual relationship with Geneieve, was jealous of her renewed relationship with Mark, was fervently trying to locate Geneieve the day of her murder, and suspected that she was wit h Mark. After Mark dropped off Genei e ve near the travel trailer on Corydon Pike Road that night , Geneieve texted Chaplin asking him to let her in the trailer

. At about theCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A05

- 1604

- CR

- 779 | October 31, 2017 Page 12 of 13

same time, Chaplin abruptly told his wife that he was going to the warehouse to
wo rk. The travel trailer was located behind the warehouse. Geneieve called Mark to tell him that Chaplin was on his way to let her in.

[22] Inside the travel trailer , police found signs of a struggle and multiple blood stains containing either Chaplin’s DNA or a mixture of Chaplin’s and Geneieve’s DNA. 2 In the middle of the night, a truck that appeared to be Chaplin’s was caught on surveillance camera at Horseshoe Southern Indiana casino heading in the direction of a twenty

- four

- hour accessible boat ramp on the Ohio River. There was a large, light

- colored object visible in the bed of the truck. A short time later, the truck was again captured driving in the opposite direction. Chaplin’s truck was later found inside the warehouse, and the area of the truck bed where the object was seen had been recently cleaned, most likely with a power washer. The back side of Geneieve’s body displayed a pattern of livid ity matching the pattern of Chaplin’s bed liner, indicating that her body had been resting on that hard surface after her death but before she was placed in the river

.
[23] The following morning, Chaplin’s wife observed fresh injuries on him that were not there the night before. One of those injuries was to his right arm, but it was concealed by a large bandage. W hen Chaplin was arrested a couple weeks

2 Chaplin makes much of the fact that his DNA was not recovered from Geneieve’s body. But the DNA analyst testified that “floating down the river for a period of time” “could definitely wash off the DNA for sure.” Tr. p. 928 ; see also id. at 951

.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A05

- 1604

- CR

- 779 | October 31, 2017 Page 13 of 13

later, that injury was consistent with a human bite mark, and it was in a location where a strangulation vict im might bite an attacker. When Chaplin spoke with police after Geneieve’s body was discovered, he told several lies

. H e also spoke about Geneieve in the past tense before he was told she was dead

.
[24] We are satisfied that Chaplin’s murder conviction is supported by independent evidence of guilt such that there is no substantial likelihood that Ogden’s testimony contributed to the jury’s verd ict. Accordingly, any error is harmless.

[25] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.