David, J.
This is a sufficiency case that turns, in part, on video evidence. At issue is the appropriate standard of review for this video evidence; more specifically, when does reviewing video evidence become impermissible reweighing? This Court has previously addressed video evidence in Robinson v. State, where we observed that: “[w]hile technology marches on, the appellate standard of review remains constant.” 5 N.E.3d 362, 365 (Ind. 2014). Today, however, we write to supplement our standard of review for video evidence to add a narrow failsafe. We hold that Indiana appellate courts reviewing the sufficiency of evidence must apply the same deferential standard of review to video evidence as to other evidence, unless the video evidence indisputably contradicts the trial court’s findings. A video indisputably contradicts the trial court’s findings when no reasonable person can view the video and come to a different conclusion.
….
In August 2013, the South Bend police observed a white van driven by Defendant, Royce Love, drive through a red light. Police began following Love and saw him disregard a stop sign. They then initiated a traffic stop, but Love did not stop. … Police attempted to use their cars to create a roadblock, but Love hit one of the police cars and kept going. Eventually, Love was stopped in an alley with the use of a spike or stop sticks which were used by police to deflate Love’s tires.
Love exited his vehicle. He was ordered to the ground. He then raised his hands and got down on all fours. He eventually lay face down on the ground. Officers used tasers and a police dog to effect Love’s arrest.
Love was charged with three counts: 1) resisting law enforcement (based on his fleeing in his vehicle) as a class D felony; 2) battery to a law enforcement animal as a class A misdemeanor; and 3) resisting law enforcement (based on forcibly resisting after the vehicle was stopped) as a class A misdemeanor.
During a jury trial, several police officers testified that Love did not comply with the officers’ commands after he exited his vehicle. Police testified that because Love was uncooperative, police deployed a taser, twice, but that Love pulled the taser probes out, necessitating deployment of a police dog. …
The State also introduced a DVD recording of the police pursuit of Love’s van, as taken from one of the officer’s cars. …
Love’s version of the events is very different. He testified that an officer approached his vehicle and told him to “get the F out of the car” and that he got out of his vehicle, put his hands up and laid face down on the ground. He further testified that he put his hands up to be cuffed, but the officers tased him, kicked him and deployed the dog who bit him. He maintains that he only tried to protect himself from the dog, that he basically hugged the dog and that he wasn’t trying to hurt it.
Love also introduced a DVD recording from an officer’s in-car camera. It showed the scene in the alley where Love was eventually stopped and arrested by police. …
The jury found Love guilty as charged. He was ultimately sentenced to consecutive one year sentences with all of the time suspended to supervised probation. He appealed.
In a split 2-1 published opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed Love’s convictions. Love v. State, 61 N.E.3d 290, 292 (Ind. Ct. App.), transfer granted, opinion vacated, 64 N.E.3d 1207 (Ind. 2016). Relying on a Texas appellate court opinion it found instructive, Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), the majority found that when faced with video evidence to review, an appellate court may not reweigh the evidence and must instead “give almost total deference to the trial court’s factual determinations unless the video recording indisputably contradicts the trial court’s findings.” … Here, the majority found that the video unambiguously showed Love cooperated with police almost immediately.
Judge Pyle dissented. He would have affirmed the trial court. He believes that his colleagues impermissibly reweighed the evidence. …
The State filed a petition to transfer, which we granted, thereby vacating the Court of Appeals decision. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).
….
This Court has declined to adopt a de novo standard for video evidence. Instead, we give the trial court’s decision great deference. However, this does not mean we do not review or consider video evidence. …
….
… Accordingly, we think it is appropriate that there be a narrow failsafe built into our standard of review for video evidence. …
This rule has since been stated as courts “give almost total deference to the trial court’s factual determinations unless the video recording indisputably contradicts the trial court’s findings.” State v. Houghton, 384 S.W.3d 441, 446 (Tex. App. 2012). We find this to be a workable approach that allows for appropriate deference to the trial court unless and until there is a reason such deference is not appropriate. We recognize these situations may be rare. But in those instances, where the video evidence indisputably contradicts the trial court’s findings, relying on such evidence and reversing the trial court’s findings do not constitute reweighing. …
Turning to the facts of the present case, Love claims that, here, the video evidence (Defendant’s Exhibit A) indisputably contradicts the testimony of five police officers and shows him cooperating with police immediately. However, the video at issue is dark and it is hard to see much. … We only have Love’s testimony and the officers’ testimony in that regard. … As such, we defer to the trial court’s factual determinations regarding weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses.
….
Because the video evidence at issue does not indisputably show Love’s compliance with police, and there is other evidence that sufficiently established the elements of the crimes, we affirm Love’s convictions for battery of a law enforcement animal and resisting law enforcement as class A misdemeanors.
Rush, C.J., Rucker, Massa and Slaughter, J.J., concur.