The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Christopher T. Tandy’s convictions for murder and auto theft, rejecting his arguments that the trial court improperly admitted complex cell site location information (CSLI) testimony and a graphic autopsy photograph. The majority opinion found that Tandy had waived certain objections, that the CSLI evidence was admissible under the “skilled witness” standard, and that the autopsy photo was relevant to the bullet trajectory. A dissenting judge strongly disagreed, arguing that both evidentiary rulings were reversible errors that prejudiced Tandy in what was otherwise a circumstantial case.
The case stems from the July 2021 death of Roderick Wallace, who was found shot six times on the side of a road in Jeffersonville. Later that day, Wallace’s blood-soaked vehicle, containing spent shell casings and Tandy’s DNA, was discovered abandoned in Louisville, Kentucky. Text messages recovered from Wallace’s phone indicated he and Tandy were planning an early morning meeting on the day of the murder, likely related to a drug deal.
Tandy was convicted by a jury of murder and auto theft. He appealed, focusing on three main issues: the admissibility of cell site evidence, the admission of a highly graphic autopsy photograph, and the denial of his post-trial motion alleging prosecutorial misconduct.
CSLI Testimony: Waiver and Skilled Witness Status
Tandy first challenged the testimony of Detective Cody Richardson regarding CSLI derived from both his and Wallace’s phones. Tandy contended the testimony, which relied on specialized mapping software called “Trax,” violated Indiana Evidence Rule 702(b) because the State failed to establish the software’s scientific reliability.
The Court of Appeals majority, however, sided with the State on the issue of preservation. The court determined that Tandy had essentially waived the scientific reliability argument because his objections at trial focused primarily on the *misleading nature* of the visual PowerPoint maps—specifically the “pie wedge” diagrams used to show potential cell tower coverage—rather than the underlying scientific validity of the Trax program itself. Because Tandy did not clearly alert the trial court to a Rule 702(b) challenge, the issue was deemed waived for appeal.
Even setting waiver aside, the majority ruled the testimony was admissible under a lower standard. Citing precedent from cases like *McCowan v. State*, the court classified Detective Richardson as a “skilled witness” rather than a scientific expert. The detective, who possessed extensive training in cell site analysis, used the software primarily to translate raw data provided by carriers (like tower locations and signal timing) into digestible visual aids for the jury. Under this framework, disputes over the *accuracy* of the estimates—such as the imprecision of the cell tower “pie wedges”—go to the *weight* of the evidence, which the defense addressed effectively during cross-examination.
The dissenting judge sharply contested this finding, arguing that Trax was not merely plotting data but performing complex algorithmic analyses that constituted scientific conclusions. The dissent pointed to scholarly criticisms of Trax’s methodology, claiming the State failed to meet the rigorous reliability requirements of Rule 702(b) in the absence of any evidence regarding testing, peer review, or error rates for the software.
Autopsy Photograph Admission Upheld
Tandy also appealed the admission of a particularly gruesome autopsy photograph (State’s Exhibit 267), which showed the victim’s scalp pulled back to expose the skull being probed to demonstrate bullet trajectory. Tandy argued this photo was highly prejudicial and unnecessary, suggesting a less graphic image sufficed.
The majority found no abuse of discretion. While acknowledging the photograph was graphic and showed the body in an “altered condition,” the court noted that such alterations are permissible if necessary to illustrate the pathologist’s testimony. Dr. James Jacobi testified that the manipulation was required to show the precise trajectory of the six close-range gunshots, supporting the State’s theory that Tandy shot Wallace from the passenger seat of the car. Because the photograph directly illuminated the bullet paths—a fact not fully conveyed by other, less manipulated photos—its probative value outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice.
The dissent strongly disagreed, comparing the image to photographs previously condemned by the Indiana Supreme Court in cases where the depiction was so altered it “barely resemble[d] a human form.” The dissent argued that the trajectory could have been explained adequately through testimony and a less inflammatory exhibit, and that the shocking nature of the photo risked inflaming the jury’s passions against Tandy in a case reliant on circumstantial evidence.
Prosecutorial Misconduct Claim Denied
Tandy’s final claim concerned alleged prosecutorial misconduct. He argued the deputy prosecutor improperly contacted Wallace’s roommate, Aaron Martin, before trial and told him that defense counsel believed Martin was a suspect. Tandy claimed this discouraged Martin from cooperating with the defense.
The Court of Appeals majority dismissed this issue on two procedural grounds. First, Tandy waived the claim because his attorney was aware of the prosecutor’s conduct before trial but failed to object or file a motion until after the jury returned its verdict. Second, filing a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment was deemed the improper procedural vehicle for such a claim, which should typically be addressed through post-conviction relief rules.
Even addressing the merits, the majority found no grave peril. The prosecutor’s statement was viewed as cautioning a potential witness about the defense’s theory, similar to conduct upheld in prior cases, and the contact occurred outside the jury’s presence, thus unlikely to have influenced the verdict.
The majority concluded that the evidence supporting the murder conviction—Tandy’s DNA in the vehicle, text message hostility, and Tandy’s post-incident admission to his girlfriend that he “killed somebody”—was overwhelming. Therefore, any potential error regarding the CSLI testimony was deemed harmless.