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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Scott Knierim

The Law Office of Scott Knierim, LLC

Danville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Justin F. Roebel

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Steven Miller,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 22, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

32A01-1412-CR-531

Appeal from the Hendricks Superior 

Court.

The Honorable Stephenie LeMayLuken, Judge.

Cause No. 32D05-1312-FB-78

Darden, Senior Judge

Statement of the Case

[1] Steven Miller appeals his convictions of two counts of dealing in 

methamphetamine both as Class B felonies. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1 (2006). 

We affirm.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1412-CR-531 | July 22, 2015 Page 1 of 5
Issue

[2] Miller presents one issue for our review, which we restate as: whether the trial 

court erred by admitting certain evidence.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On two occasions in May 2013, Miller sold methamphetamine to a confidential 

informant who was working with the Unified Drug Task Force of Hendricks 

County. Based on these transactions, the State charged Miller with two counts 

of dealing in methamphetamine, both as Class B felonies, and two counts of 

possession of methamphetamine, both as Class D felonies, Indiana Code 

section 35-48-4-6.1 (2006). Trial by jury commenced on October 28, 2014.

[4] At trial, the State offered Exhibit 3, a video, and Miller’s counsel objected,

stating that the video was never provided to the defense during discovery. In 

response, the State argued that discovery had been provided to defense counsel 

several months prior to trial. After hearing argument from both sides, the trial 

court overruled Miller’s objection and admitted Exhibit 3 into evidence. The 

jury viewed Exhibit 3 and subsequently found Miller guilty of all counts. 

Judgment of conviction was entered only on the two counts of dealing in 

methamphetamine as Class B felonies, and the court sentenced Miller to six 

years on each count, to be served concurrent with one another.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1412-CR-531 | July 22, 2015 Page 2 of 5
Discussion and Decision

[5] Miller’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by admitting 

Exhibit 3 into evidence over his objection at trial. The trial court is afforded 

broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and we will reverse 

its ruling only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. Paul v. State, 971

N.E.2d 172, 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). An abuse of discretion occurs when a 

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

before the court. Id.

[6] Further, the trial court has broad discretion in ruling on matters of discovery, 

and we will reverse the trial court only when that discretion has been abused.

Grimes v. Crockrom, 947 N.E.2d 452, 454 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). An abuse of 

discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and 

effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or when the trial court has 

misinterpreted the law. Id. Due to the fact-sensitive nature of discovery issues, 

a trial court’s ruling is cloaked with a strong presumption of correctness. Hill v. 

Fitzpatrick, 827 N.E.2d 138, 141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

[7] Charges were filed against Miller on December 13, 2013. On that same day, 

the State filed its discovery disclosure with the trial court. The State’s discovery 

document contained three sections. Section #3 was entitled 

“Documents/Exhibits available for inspection upon request” and contained 

subsection f. “Panasonic video of deal TF-13-05-005.” Appellant’s App. p. 18.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1412-CR-531 | July 22, 2015 Page 3 of 5
[8] At trial, the State moved to admit Exhibit 3, which was the Panasonic video 

described in section #3, subsection f. of the State’s discovery document. 

Miller’s counsel objected to the admission of Exhibit 3, stating that it was never 

provided to the defense. However, Miller’s counsel then acknowledged that he 

had actually received a Panasonic disc from the State approximately six weeks 

prior to trial but explained that he had tried to play it on three different devices, 

which all showed that the disc was blank. The State responded that two weeks 

prior to trial it offered to play the videos for defense counsel if he could not 

view the copies provided to him. Defense counsel agreed that the State had 

made this offer and added that he had had discussions with the State prior to 

trial because he had difficulty with other discs as well. At this juncture, the 

State proposed a short continuance of the trial to give Miller and his counsel an 

opportunity to view Exhibit 3 on the State’s laptop. The trial court overruled 

Miller’s objection but offered him a short continuance to view the video. Miller 

and his counsel declined the trial court’s offer. Exhibit 3 was admitted into 

evidence and played for the jury. The video merely showed Miller purchasing

gas at a convenience store.

[9] Defense counsel requested, and the State turned over, the video of Miller 

several weeks prior to trial. Later, defense counsel informed the State it was 

having difficulty viewing some of the videos, and the State offered to play the 

videos for counsel; however, defense counsel did not take the State up on its 

offer. Finally, at trial the State proposed and the trial court offered a short 

continuance in which Miller and his counsel could view the video on the State’s 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1412-CR-531 | July 22, 2015 Page 4 of 5
laptop before it was played for the jury. Again, defense counsel declined the 

offer. The trial court’s decision is clearly consistent with the logic and effect of 

the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, there was no abuse of the trial 

court’s discretion.

Conclusion

[10] For the reasons stated, we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting 

Exhibit 3 into evidence.

[11] Affirmed.

[12] Vaidik, C.J., and Najam, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1412-CR-531 | July 22, 2015 Page 5 of 5