Lucas Benkert, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Lucas Benkert (“Benkert”) was convicted of aiding, inducing, or causing murder,¹ a felony, and was sentenced to a term of forty-five years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). Benkert appeals his conviction, arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.²

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 15, 2020, after 9:00 p.m., Matthew Benkert (“Matthew”), who is Benkert's father, arrived home from work, unlocked his door, went inside his home, and found an unknown man, who was later identified as James Jason Burkhart (“James”), lying dead in the doorway to Benkert's bedroom. Benkert who was fifteen years old at the time, was not home, and Matthew's .380 caliber handgun, which he normally kept on the TV stand in the family room, was missing. Matthew called the police, who arrived and began investigating the man's death. After the police arrived, Matthew received a call from Benkert, but the police told him not to answer it. Benkert then texted his father, “delete the camera app off your phone.” Ex. Vol. I p. 26.

[3] Matthew had been communicating with Benkert throughout the afternoon and evening of the shooting through calls and text messages while Matthew was at work. At 3:08 p.m., Matthew told Benkert to call when he got home, and at 6:19 p.m., Benkert responded “im [sic] at a buddy[’]s house.” Id. At 7:42 p.m., Matthew replied, “Ok buddy, love you, be careful & be home by 10,” to which Benkert immediately texted back “im [sic] home.” Id. The next text message that Matthew received from Benkert was to delete the camera app at 9:45 p.m.

[4] Shortly after the police arrived at Benkert's house, they were also dispatched to the home of James Beau Burkhart (“Beau”), who was Benkert's friend. Fabiola Burkhart (“Fabiola”), Beau's mother, had called the police to report that her husband, James, had been shot. The police went to the Burkhart home and spoke with Fabiola and Beau. Beau told police that Benkert had been at his house earlier in the day and that James had driven Benkert home afterward with Beau accompanying them. According to Beau, once they arrived at Benkert's house, they went inside, and Benkert shot James in the back of the head. Beau claimed that Benkert then held him at gunpoint for a moment before leaving the house. Beau stated that he then walked home. While the police spoke with Beau, they observed his demeanor and noted that, although he appeared anxious, he did not appear emotional or upset.

[5] Police tracked Benkert through cell phone pings to the Ohio area, where he was found driving James's car. Benkert led police from the Ohio State Highway Patrol on a chase before crashing the car near Columbus. Inside the crashed car, police found a .22 caliber revolver that belonged to Benkert and had been purchased for him by Matthew as a gift for Benkert's fourteenth or fifteenth birthday. Inside the car, the police also found Benkert's cellphone, a sweatshirt with James's blood on it, the video surveillance camera from Benkert's house, camping gear, large backpacks, and clothing. After the car crash, Benkert was taken to a hospital in Ohio. When Matthew arrived, Matthew and Benkert executed a waiver of rights form and agreed to speak with the police.

[6] During a recorded interview with the police, Benkert confessed to shooting James in the back of the head because of how James treated Beau. Benkert stated that he first shot James with the .380 caliber handgun and then later with the .22 caliber revolver. Before Benkert left the state, he had contacted a friend from school and told him that he had shot James. In his interview with the police, Benkert admitted packing his bags, visiting his mother, and then fleeing the state. He also told the police that while he kept his .22 caliber revolver, he had thrown away the .380 caliber handgun.

[7] While investigating the murder, the police viewed the footage from the home surveillance camera in Benkert's house. The footage showed Benkert a few hours before the shooting as he performed some household chores in the kitchen and family room area. The camera also captured Benkert turning the camera so it could no longer visually record what was occurring in the house; however, it continued to capture audio of what occurred in the house. Later, when Benkert, Beau, and James arrived at Benkert's house, the camera captured the audio of what transpired. Upon entering the house, Benkert called out “Hey, Dad,” and when there was no answer, told James and Beau that his father was in the bathroom and would be “out in a minute.” Tr. Vol. V p. 48; Ex. 443, Video 0701 TO 0725 at 11:48–11:49, 12:00–12:15. However, at that time, Matthew was at work, and his car was not parked in its normal spot. Less than a minute later, a loud gunshot followed by a thud was audible. Benkert immediately exclaimed, “Holy fucking shit, you just fucking did it!” Tr. Vol. V pp. 52–53; Ex. 443, 0701 TO 0725 at 12:55–12:59. Benkert then references a backpack and tells Beau where it should be hanging.

[8] The surveillance audio captured extensive conversations between Benkert and Beau immediately following the shooting:

Benkert: You're good, you're fucking good. You wanted that to happen, remember?

Beau: I'm happy he's dead, dude.

Ex. 443, Video 0701 TO 0725 at 14:36–14:42.

Beau: I fucking leveled his ass.

Benkert: I wanna [sic] take a fucking picture of his ass on the ground. I don't give a fuck.

Id. at 14:54–14:58. When Beau asked when his father would be home, Benkert responded that they needed to leave before 8:00 p.m. because that was the earliest he could be home. Benkert reminded Beau not to tell his mother anything and “don't even fucking talk to her.” Tr. Vol. V p. 54; Ex. 443, Video 0701 TO 0725 at 18:20–18:21.

[9] About a minute later, Benkert told Beau, “Don't put another bullet in him,” but another shot was heard immediately afterwards, approximately seven minutes after the first. Ex. 443, Video 0701 TO 0725 at 18:54–18:55, 18:59–19:00. After the second shooting, Beau yelled, “Boom, now he's dead!” Tr. Vol. V p. 55; Ex. 443, Video 0701 TO 0725 at 19:01–19:02. The audio captured further conversations about covering up the crime:

Benkert: Well, they're gonna [sic] find the bullets. They're gonna [sic] know it was a .22 and a .380. My dad owns a .380 and I own a .22.

Beau: What are you gonna [sic] do with your dad?

Benkert: He was at work. He has a fucking alibi. My dad is safe.

Tr. Vol. V pp. 55–56; Ex. 443, Video 0701 TO 0725 at 19:50–20:05. When discussing taking the blame, the following exchange was recorded:

Beau: You're taking the blame?

Benkert: Yes

Ex. 443, Video 0701 TO 0725 at 21:00–21:15.

Beau: Well, they're going to know it was you either way. You're taking the blame, right? You gotta [sic] take the blame. You can't put this shit on me, bro.

Tr. Vol. V p. 56; Ex. 443, Video 0701 TO 0725 at 22:19–22:26. Benkert and Beau took pictures and videos of James's dead body using Benkert's cell phone. Benkert and Beau left the house around 7:57 p.m., with Benkert driving James's car toward Ohio and Beau walking home.

[10] An autopsy was performed on James's body, which revealed that he died from multiple gunshot wounds to the head. A metal fragment consistent with a .22 caliber bullet was found inside James's head, while the other gunshot wound had both an entry and exit wound. A .380 caliber bullet and casing were found in Benkert's house. Both of the gunshot wounds would have been fatal, and the coroner could not determine which shot occurred first. Despite their efforts, police were unable to locate Matthew's missing .380 caliber handgun. During the investigation, the police learned that Benkert had been planning to run away and potentially commit suicide, so he had “agreed to take the blame” for James's murder. Tr. Vol. V p. 68. It was also determined through the investigation that Beau, not Benkert, actually shot and killed James. A jury trial was ultimately held on November 13, 2023. At the conclusion of the trial, Benkert was found not guilty of murder but guilty of aiding, inducing, or causing murder.

[11] On May 6, 2024, Benkert was sentenced to forty-five years executed in the DOC. On May 31, 2024, Benkert filed a motion to correct error, alleging that after Beau was convicted of murder on February 5, 2024, he had provided additional evidence that should be considered newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial. A hearing was held on the motion, and the trial court denied the motion to correct error on August 8, 2024. Benkert now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Benkert argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction for aiding, inducing, or causing murder. When there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Gibson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 204, 210 (Ind. 2016), cert. denied. Instead, we consider only that evidence most favorable to the judgment together with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. “We will affirm the judgment if it is supported by substantial evidence of probative value even if there is some conflict in that evidence.” Id. Further, “[w]e will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

[13] Benkert was convicted of murdering James under a theory of accomplice liability. Indiana Code section 35-42-1-1(1) defines murder as “knowingly or intentionally kill[ing] another human being[.]” Under Indiana Code section 35-41-2-4, a defendant can be found guilty as an accomplice when the defendant “knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to commit an offense.” It is not necessary that the evidence establishes the accomplice personally participated in the commission of each element of the offense. Jackson v. State, 222 N.E.3d 321, 336–37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. A person who aids another in committing a crime is just as guilty as the actual perpetrator. Madden v. State, 162 N.E.3d 549, 557 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021).

[14] There is no bright-line rule in determining accomplice liability. Carter v. State, 235 N.E.3d 875, 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied. Instead, the particular facts and circumstances of each case determine whether a person was an accomplice. Id. In determining whether a person aided another in the commission of a crime, we consider the following four factors: “ ‘(1) presence at the scene of the crime; (2) companionship with another engaged in criminal activity; (3) failure to oppose the crime; and (4) a defendant's conduct before, during, and after the occurrence of the crime.’ ” Jackson, 222 N.E.3d at 337 (quoting Garland v. State, 788 N.E.2d 425, 431 (Ind. 2003)).

[15] Looking at the evidence most favorable to the verdict, the evidence established that Benkert was present at the scene of the murder and that Benkert was friends with Beau and accompanied him and James to Benkert's house where the murder occurred. Additionally, the evidence indicated that Benkert failed to oppose the murder of James. Instead, several comments made between Benkert and Beau suggested that Benkert knew the shooting was going to occur and they were acting in concert. Immediately after Beau shot his father, Benkert yelled, “Holy fucking shit! You just fucking did it!” Tr. Vol. V pp. 52–53; Ex. 443, 0701 TO 0725 at 12:55–12:59. Benkert did not make any exclamation that suggested that he opposed the murder, such as telling Beau to stop, and there was no sound of a struggle to suggest that Benkert attempted to disarm Beau or to curtail his actions. Instead, Benkert's use of the word “it” to refer to the murder suggested that there was a common understanding between him and Beau of what “it” meant and that “it” had been previously discussed. A short time later, Benkert reassured his friend, stating, “You're good, you're fucking good. You wanted that to happen, remember?” Ex. 443, Video 0701 TO 0725 at 14:36–14:42. These comments, especially when considered with other evidence, suggest that there had been a prior discussion between Benkert and Beau about what would occur that night.

[16] Further, evidence of Benkert's conduct before, during, and after the murder demonstrated his complicity with the crime. Before the murder, not only had Beau talked to Benkert about James being abusive, but Benkert had witnessed some of the abuse himself. Benkert told the police that this is where the “thought [of killing James] started.” Ex. 432, Video 2 at 4:34–4:50, 5:47–6:00. A few hours prior to the murder, before leaving the house to meet up with Beau, Benkert adjusted the surveillance camera in his house so that it no longer visually recorded the kitchen and family room area of the home. Later, when James took Benkert home, Benkert invited James into his home under the guise of meeting Benkert's father, who was at work and not home. Despite this, Benkert went into his house and loudly said, “Hey Dad,” before Beau and his father followed him inside, and then Benkert told Beau and James that his father was in the bathroom and would be “out in a minute.” Ex. 443, Video 0701 TO 0725, at 11:48–11:49, 12:11–12:15. After the murder occurred, Benkert told Beau that Matthew would not be home until 8:00 p.m. at the earliest and that Matthew would be safe because he was at work and had an alibi for time of the murder. This evidence demonstrates that Benkert actively participated in the plan to lure James into the home prior to the murder and adjusted the home surveillance camera so that the murder would not be captured on video. Furthermore, after the murder, Benkert instructed his father to delete all surveillance footage.

[17] After the murder, Benkert agreed to lie and take the blame for the murder. Benkert both assured Beau of this in the minutes after the murder and also repeated the lie to others, including a friend, his mom, his dad, and the police. Benkert aided Beau in avoiding implication in the murder by lying and taking the blame for the murder and by taking the firearms from the scene and disposing of one of the firearms.

[18] Although the fact that a person was present at the scene of a crime and did not oppose the crime may not be sufficient by itself to convict the person of murder, Vitek v. State, 750 N.E.2d 346, 352 (Ind. 2001), Benkert's actions demonstrate he was an active participant in the planning of the murder, in luring James to the murder scene, and in concealing the murder. Based on this evidence, we conclude that sufficient evidence was presented from which the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Benkert knowingly or intentionally aided, induced, or caused Beau to commit murder.

[19] In arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction, Benkert relies on Garland v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind. 1999). However, that case is distinguishable from the present case. In Garland, our Supreme Court held that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant acted as an accomplice to murder because there was an “absence of evidence demonstrating that the defendant took any step to aid, induce, or cause the crime, even though the defendant may have known that the co-defendant intended to commit murder, and took no action to prevent it.” Id. at 1242. Here, however, there was ample evidence that Benkert knew that the shooting was going to occur and coordinated a place and time where the shooting could occur. Additionally, the defendant in Garland was surprised by the shooting and attempted to get others away from the scene quickly, id. at 1241, but here, Benkert was not surprised that Beau shot James, and spent several minutes immediately after the shooting taking pictures and videos of the victim, unplugging and removing the surveillance camera, packing his belongings to flee, and locking up before he left the house. Benkert's reactions after Beau shot James were not those of shock, surprise, or panic but were measured and calculated to conceal the crime and to assist Beau in avoiding responsibility for the crime. Unlike the circumstances in Garland, here, it was reasonable for the jury to find that Benkert acted as an accomplice in the murder of James. We, therefore, conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support Benkert's conviction.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1); I.C. § 35-42-2-4.

2.   On April 25, 2025, we decided the appeal of Benkert's co-defendant, James Beau Burkhart (“Beau”), affirming Beau's conviction and sentence. See Burkhart v. State, 259 N.E.3d 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied.

Foley, Judge.

Judges Mathias and Felix concur. Mathias, J. and Felix, J., conur.