## Facts

- Mirtha McHenry worked as a bank teller.
- A $6,500 cash withdrawal was processed from customer Charles Landes’s account without his authorization.
- The transaction was not supported by a withdrawal slip signed by Landes or other proof of authorization.
- The State introduced bank surveillance video from the relevant time period showing no customer at McHenry’s teller window when the Landes transaction was processed.
- Foundational testimony established the video’s reliability and authenticity, including removal of the tape by a bank manager, correlation of the recording’s date/time and transaction details by a detective, and testimony by a records custodian that the recording system operated as part of the bank’s regular business activity.
- A jury convicted McHenry of Class C felony forgery and Class D felony theft.
- The court of appeals reversed for insufficient evidence and ordered discharge; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reviewed the convictions, jury selection rulings, and video admission.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find McHenry guilty of forgery and theft beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the trial court reversibly erred by denying challenges for cause to two prospective jurors.
3. Whether the bank surveillance videotape was properly admitted, including whether an adequate foundation for authenticity and trustworthiness was established.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and reinstated the forgery and theft convictions.
- The Court held the evidence was sufficient, emphasizing that appellate review considers only evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict and does not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility.
- The Court held the trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing to strike the two challenged jurors for cause.
- The Court held the surveillance videotape was properly admitted because the State established authenticity and trustworthiness; objections about completeness went to weight, not admissibility.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, courts consider only probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict; they may not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility, and must affirm if a reasonable factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Circumstantial evidence, standing alone, may support a conviction if the jury’s inferences are reasonable and grounded in the record.
- A trial court’s ruling on a juror challenge for cause is reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal requires a clear showing of bias or inability to be fair that results in an unfair jury.
- A surveillance video may be admitted when the proponent shows it is what it purports to be and is trustworthy, including through testimony regarding the recording system’s operation in regular business activity and the chain of custody; disputes about coverage or completeness generally affect weight rather than admissibility.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court held that the jury could reasonably infer from the unauthorized account withdrawal and the surveillance video evidence that McHenry committed forgery and theft, and it found no reversible error in jury selection or the admission of the bank’s surveillance recording.


McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. 2005)