Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2026 | March 31, 2020 Page 1 of 6

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

Mark F. James

Anderson, Agostino & Keller P.C.

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Tiffany A. McCoy

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Malik Johnson,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

March 31, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2026

Appeal from the St. Joseph 

Superior Court

The Honorable Julie Verheye, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

71D08-1510-CM-4056

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2026 | March 31, 2020 Page 2 of 6

[1] Malik Johnson appeals his conviction for Class A Misdemeanor Theft,1 arguing 

that the trial court erroneously admitted certain evidence and, as a result, the 

evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Finding no error and 

sufficient evidence, we affirm.

Facts

[2] In May 2015, Jonathan Steele saw an ad for a Ford Taurus posted in a 

Facebook group named “Northern Indiana ‘cheap cars and trucks’ $1000 or 

less[.]” Tr. Ex. 1. The ad was posted by a Facebook profile under the name of 

“Counting Blessings[.]” Tr. Ex. 1. Steele contacted the Counting Blessings

profile, and the person who owned the profile, later identified as Johnson, 

agreed to accept payments rather than payment in full and to meet so that 

Steele could see the vehicle and make a first payment of $400.

[3] Steele and his mother drove to South Bend to meet Johnson. They inspected 

the vehicle and Steele gave Johnson $400 in cash. Johnson did not give Steele 

the keys to the vehicle or a bill of sale. Johnson, who was still in the Taurus, 

asked Steele to follow him to a gas station. Steele refused and asked Johnson to 

exit the car since he had already paid Johnson $400. In response, Johnson 

drove away in the Taurus with the $400. Steele later tried to contact Johnson 

through Facebook, but was unsuccessful because Johnson had blocked him.

1

Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2026 | March 31, 2020 Page 3 of 6

[4] Later that day, Steele filed a police report. The case was assigned to South 

Bend Police Department Detective John Hall. Steele gave Johnson’s name to 

Detective Hall. Detective Hall retrieved a screen shot of the Counting Blessings 

Facebook profile page, which depicted a photograph of a man and a young 

child; that photo was the same profile picture as the Counting Blessings profile 

that had posted the ad for the Taurus. Detective Hall then submitted a request 

to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles for a copy of Johnson’s driver’s license. He 

was able to confirm that the photo on the driver’s license was the same 

individual in the Counting Blessings profile picture.

[5] On July 20, 2015, Detective Hall met with Johnson. After waiving his rights, 

Johnson confirmed that he had posted a picture of a vehicle that was for sale on 

Facebook and that he was contacted by people wanting to make payments on 

that vehicle.

[6] On October 26, 2015, the State charged Johnson with Class A misdemeanor 

theft. A bench trial took place on August 1, 2019.2 At trial, the State offered 

into evidence a screenshot of the Ford Taurus Facebook ad as Exhibit 1. It was 

admitted into evidence without objection. Detective Hall explained that after

he looked at the ad, which was posted by the Counting Blessings Facebook 

profile, he then went to the Counting Blessings profile itself. The State offered 

into evidence a screenshot of that profile. Johnson objected, arguing that 

2 The record does not reveal the reason for the lengthy delay.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2026 | March 31, 2020 Page 4 of 6

Detective Hill was unable to authenticate the document because he was neither 

the author nor the subject of the document. The trial court overruled the 

objection and admitted the screenshot into evidence as Exhibit 2, explaining as 

follows:

[B]ased on the document that’s in State’s Exhibit 1 there’s a 

photograph up in the top upper left corner of State’s Exhibit 1. 

That same photograph, which contains a photograph of a man 

and a younger child is on the same—it’s the same photograph 

that appears on State’s Exhibit 1 and State’s Exhibit 2.

Tr. Vol. II p. 17. Detective Hall also identified Johnson in court as the same 

person he had spoken to who had told the detective that he had posted the ad 

regarding the vehicle on Facebook. At the close of the trial, the trial court 

found Johnson guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Johnson to thirty 

days, fully suspended to probation, to be served consecutively to a sentence in 

another cause. The trial court also ordered Johnson to pay $400 in restitution 

and allowed early termination of probation upon payment of restitution. 

Johnson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Johnson primarily argues that the trial court erred by admitting Exhibit 2 into 

evidence.3 The admission or exclusion of evidence falls within the sound 

3

Johnson also appears to attempt to raise, for the first time, an argument that he was denied due process 

based on the pretrial process used to identify him. He has waived this argument by failing to raise a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2026 | March 31, 2020 Page 5 of 6

discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse only when the trial court’s 

ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts before it. Turner v. State, 

953 N.E.2d 1039, 1045 (Ind. 2011).

[8] The authentication of evidence is governed by Indiana Evidence Rule 901(a), 

which explains that the authentication requirement is satisfied by evidence 

“sufficient to support a finding that the item in question is what the proponent 

claims it is.” Certain proof of authenticity is not required; instead, all that is 

required is evidence establishing “a reasonable probability that an item is what 

it is claimed to be[.]” Thomas v. State, 734 N.E.2d 572, 573 (Ind. 2000). 

Distinctive characteristics such as “[t]he appearance, contents, substance, [and] 

internal patterns,” of the item, taken together with the surrounding 

circumstances, satisfies the authentication requirement. Evid. R. 901(b)(4). 

[9] Here, Detective Hall explained that he first examined the Facebook ad, which 

had been posted by the Counting Blessings profile. Detective Hall then 

examined the Counting Blessings profile page itself. He explained that Exhibit 

2 was an accurate copy of the Counting Blessings profile page that he had 

viewed during his investigation. Additionally, the trial court observed that it 

was clear that the photograph in the Counting Blessings profile page matched 

the photograph contained in Exhibit 1, which had been admitted without 

contemporaneous argument when Detective Hall testified. He has also failed to make a cogent argument on 

appeal. Regardless, there is no evidence of a show-up identification or that Detective Hall used an 

unnecessarily suggestive procedure to enable Steele to identify Johnson. Therefore, this argument is 

unavailing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2026 | March 31, 2020 Page 6 of 6

objection. We find that Detective Hall’s testimony, as well as the appearance, 

contents, and substance of Exhibit 2, sufficiently authenticated the exhibit. 

Therefore, the trial court did not err by admitting Exhibit 2 into evidence.

[10] Even if the admission had been erroneous, however, the error would have been 

harmless because there is sufficient evidence supporting Johnson’s guilt without 

Exhibit 2. Specifically, the following evidence supports the conviction:

• It is undisputed that someone took $400 from Steele and did not provide a 

vehicle in exchange for the money.

• Steele provided Johnson’s name to Detective Hall.

• Detective Hall compared the photo from the Facebook ad to Johnson’s 

driver’s license photo and confirmed that it was the same individual.

• Johnson admitted that he had, in fact, posted an ad on Facebook to sell a 

vehicle.

In other words, even without Exhibit 2, a reasonable factfinder could conclude, 

based on this evidence and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn 

therefrom, that Johnson is guilty as charged. Consequently, we affirm.

[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bradford, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.