David E. Bond, Jr., Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] David E. Bond, Jr., called 911 to report that he had found his romantic partner, Ashley Bennett, unconscious in her bedroom. She died at her apartment despite medics’ efforts to sustain her life. Although there were some signs that Bennett may have overdosed on methamphetamine (“meth”), it soon became clear that she had been fatally beaten and strangled, and the overdose was staged. In addition, a nearby surveillance camera's recordings contradicted Bond's statements about his whereabouts just before the murder.

[2] The State charged Bond with murder and other offenses. A jury found him guilty. Bond appeals his murder conviction, arguing that fundamental error occurred during the prosecutor's questioning of a police officer at trial. Concluding that Bond has failed to prove fundamental error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

1. Background – Bennett and Bond

[3] In 2020, Bennett returned to Muncie after being away for three years while she received treatment for addiction to meth. She got a job and rented an apartment. The apartment was on the ground floor of a house that had been split into three units.

[4] Bennett and Bond had been in a romantic relationship, and they restarted their relationship after Bennett returned to Muncie. Bond was married to another woman, but he stayed at Bennett's apartment so often that Bennett's upstairs neighbor, Jonathon Anderson, thought that Bond lived there.

[5] Bond exhibited controlling behaviors towards Bennett. He stopped her from visiting her daughter, who lived with Bennett's mother. In addition, when Anderson approached Bond on their building's front porch to introduce himself, Bennett began to step outside, but Bond “told her to go back inside.” Tr. Vol. 3, p. 26. Anderson also heard arguments and physical confrontations coming from Bennett's apartment “almost every day.” Id. at 29. And Megan Young,¹ a longtime friend of Bennett's, saw Bond yell at her and insult her on several occasions.

[6] Bond used meth. When he was under the influence of that drug, he would become “angry” and “paranoid.” Id. at 40. He also accused Bennett of cheating. Id. at 57. Bennett resumed using meth during her relationship with Bond. Bennett's acquaintance, Melinda Clifford, used meth with her. Clifford noticed that Bennett used meth to such an extent that she had to stop injecting in her arms because she could not find any usable veins. Clifford would have found it “odd” if someone had told her that Bennett had attempted to use an injection site on her arms. Id. at 49.

2. Events Leading Up to Bond's 911 Call

[7] In early August 2020, Bennett told Bond she was pregnant with his child. On the morning of August 2, 2020, Bond acknowledged her pregnancy in a text message to her. Tr. Vol. 5, p. 149. Later that day, he texted Bennett to ask if she was “with someone else now[.]” Id. at 152. He further said she was “playing with [him].” Id. at 153. Bennett denied being with anyone else.

[8] On the night of August 2, Clifford spent the night at Bennett's apartment. Clifford woke up at around ten a.m. on August 3. While Clifford was in the bathroom, Reggie Akins stopped by the apartment to deliver meth. Bond was aware that Bennett was in contact with Akins and was jealous of him. After Akins left, both women used the meth. Clifford left at 1 p.m. She did not see any wounds, bruises, or scratches on Bennett.

[9] Just before noon, Bennett texted Bond to ask if he could come to her apartment to help her with a few tasks. He responded that he would be there.

[10] Next, Young and her husband picked up Bennett. They took her to lunch and to a gas station. During lunch, Bennett said that Bond had accused her of taking his property. They returned Bennett to her apartment after several hours. Young did not see any injuries or bruises on Bennett.

[11] A surveillance camera on a property down the street from Bennett's apartment building recorded a view of the front and left side of the building. On the afternoon of August 3, Bond approached the building on foot, after pausing at a distance to watch Young and her husband leave. He wore a red t-shirt and shorts. Bond entered Bennett's apartment at around 2:20 p.m.² State's Ex. 163, Track 3, at 14:13; Tr. Vol. 3, p. 159. He left the apartment on foot at around 3:22 p.m. Tr. Vol. 3, p. 160.

[12] Approximately ten minutes later, Bond returned to the property and walked up to Anderson, who was sitting in his truck. Id. at 161-62. Anderson later said that Bond approached him to ask if he had Bond's “stimulus card.” Id. at 27. Anderson denied having the card, and Bond threatened to beat him if he was lying. Next, Bond went into Bennett's apartment and did not leave again until he called 911. Id. at 90.

[13] At around 4:50 p.m., Jessica Smith and a companion, Ashley Bright, arrived at Bennett's apartment on bicycles. State's Ex. 163, Track 7, at 16:44. The surveillance camera recording shows Smith approaching the front door. Bond later said that he briefly spoke with Smith and accepted a bag that was for Bennett. Smith and Bright rode away from the apartment building at around 4:55 p.m.

[14] Shortly before 5:30 p.m., someone using Bennett's phone separately texted Clifford and Young to say, “I need that card[.]” Tr. Vol. 5, p. 164. Clifford and Young responded, asking for more information, but neither of them received a reply. Clifford called Bennett, but no one answered. Around the same time, someone used the Facebook Messenger app on Bennett's phone to ask other people about a card. The last message was sent at 5:38 p.m.

[15] At 5:44 p.m., Bond called 911. He told the operator that he had found Bennett in an unconscious state upon returning to the apartment. Bennett's breathing can be heard over the phone as Bond claimed that he was attempting to administer CPR.

3. Emergency Medical Response

[16] Paramedic/Firefighter Stephen Coots was dispatched to Bennett's apartment with his engine crew. Coots found Bennett in the bedroom, sprawled partially on the bed and partially on the floor. She was nude from the waist down. Bennett was still breathing, but her skin was purple. She was taking “small gasping style” breaths, a circumstance known as “agonal respirations.” Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 46-47.

[17] Another paramedic, Amy Netherton, arrived one minute after Coots and his engine crew. She spoke with Bond in the living room. Netherton knew from prior experience that people who are present for their loved ones’ overdoses frequently ask a lot of detailed questions and attempt to make physical contact with the patient. But Bond was “aloof” and did not ask many questions about Bennett's condition or what treatment they were providing. Id. at 79. Bond also evaded Netherton's questions, seeming reluctant to say what drugs might be in Bennett's system. Based on her observations and past experience, Netherton suspected that Bond was under the influence of controlled substances.

[18] Netherton entered the bedroom to assist in providing treatment. Coots and Netherton saw a disposable syringe stuck in Bennett's arm. Coots removed it for safety, and he noticed that the needle was bent. He had been on hundreds of emergency runs for drug overdoses, but he had never seen an overdose event associated with a bent needle. Netherton noticed that the needle was larger in diameter than she typically saw in heroin or meth overdose situations. She also saw a brown liquid in the syringe, which was “odd” because, in her experience, users always inject the full amount of a drug before overdose occurs. Id. at 75.

[19] The emergency team moved Bennett to the living room and placed her on the floor. They determined that Bennett was no longer breathing and had no pulse, so they began CPR and other life support procedures. Coots and Netherton tried to run a tube down Bennett's throat to help her breathe, but something in her throat blocked the tube. In Coots’ and Netherton's experience, her level of resistance to intubation was abnormal and they suspected that there was an obstruction in her throat.

[20] Netherton noted two other circumstances while the team treated Bennett. First, Netherton tried to suction fluid out of her throat and lungs, and “a whole lot of blood” came out of her nose and mouth. Id. at 71. Second, Netherton noticed that Bennett had claw marks on her neck and blood under her fingernails. Neither circumstance was common in overdose cases.

[21] Meanwhile, Officer Brad Downing of the Muncie Police Department had arrived at the apartment shortly after the medics. He spoke with Bond on the front porch. Bond told him that “he had come back and seen her like that and called 911[.]” Id. at 100. He also said that he stayed with Bennett occasionally. Bond was wearing shorts and had a red t-shirt draped over one shoulder.

[22] The emergency team succeeded in using a different type of tube to force air into Bennett's lungs. Her coloration began to return to normal, except that her face and head remained purple. And as blood began to recirculate, Netherton noticed bruising appearing on Bennett's neck, legs, arms, and hands. She also noted the presence of older bruises.

[23] Aside from her coloration partially returning, Bennett did not respond to the medics’ efforts. Netherton, Coots, and other persons attempted life-saving measures for around twenty minutes, with no success. At that point, Netherton called an emergency room and obtained permission to discontinue resuscitation. They recorded Bennett's time of death as 6:06 p.m.

4. Subsequent Investigation - Police Interrogations of Bond

[24] Later on August 3, Bond was transported to the police station, where Detective Dustin Lee questioned him. Bond admitted that he was under the influence of meth. He gave Bennett's apartment as his address, but he said that he was married and also stayed at his wife's home. Bond told the detective that Bennett had been pregnant.

[25] Bond claimed that he had arrived at Bennett's apartment immediately after Young left, and Bennett was impaired because she was under the influence of meth and heroin. Bond further claimed that Bennett had lots of bruises but refused to say who had inflicted them, expressing fear for her life.

[26] Next, Bond told Detective Lee that he left the apartment to walk to the bank. He said that he was gone for forty-five minutes to an hour, and when he returned, he saw Anderson leaving Bennett's apartment. As an aside, Bond claimed that Bennett had previously told him that Anderson had accused her of stealing a health card or credit card. Bond claimed that he asked Anderson about that card. Next, Bond said that he entered the apartment and used the bathroom. He claimed that when he came out, he saw that Bennett was unconscious, so he called 911. At one point, Detective Lee asked Bond about text messages he had received from Bennett. Bond showed some of the messages to the detective.

[27] Toward the end of the interrogation, Detective Lee asked Bond if he remembered Jessica Smith stopping at the apartment that afternoon. Bond recalled that she had dropped off a bag. Detective Lee said that Smith told him that Bond was wearing a white bloodstained shirt when he answered the door. Bond denied wearing a white shirt that afternoon, saying that he had not been wearing a shirt when he found Bennett and tried to help her.

[28] On August 4, Detective Lee and a colleague conducted a second interrogation of Bond at the police station. Bond said he had been at his wife's house on the morning of August 3, and she had dropped him off in downtown Muncie in the afternoon. Bond admitted that his wife knew about his relationship with Bennett and had warned him not to visit her.

[29] Bond told the detectives that he went to Bennett's apartment, where he saw Young and a man sitting in a truck outside. After they left, Bond went inside, where he said that Bennett was slumped over on the couch, under the effects of heroin. Later, they used meth together. He again claimed that Bennett was battered and bruised but refused to say who had injured her.

[30] Next, Bond told the detectives that he left for forty-five minutes to go to an ATM. He first claimed that he took out $200, and then he later said he did not remember how much he took out. Bond alleged that when he returned, Anderson was leaving Bennett's apartment, and he spoke with Anderson. When Bond entered the apartment, Bennett was conscious and talking. Bond claimed that he went to use the bathroom, and he heard Bennett say she was going to take a shower. When he came out, she was unconscious on the bed, with purple skin, and he called 911. He claimed at one point that he had called 911 within five minutes of reentering the apartment and seeing Bennett unconscious.

[31] Bond again conceded that Jessica Smith had stopped by the apartment, but he gave several different estimations of when she had arrived. Bond again denied that he was wearing a white bloody shirt when he answered the door, saying that he did not understand why Smith would say that.

[32] The officers asked to see Bond's cell phone. He said that his mother had stepped on it the previous night, breaking the screen.

5. Subsequent Investigation – Physical Evidence

[33] Kevin Pierce, a crime scene investigator for the Muncie Police Department, was dispatched to Bennett's apartment. In the living room, Pierce found a package of syringes on the couch, along with an ibuprofen bottle that contained two different types of unidentified pills.

[34] When he entered the bedroom, he smelled a chemical odor consistent with “household cleaners.” Id. at 220. Pierce did not usually encounter that odor at a crime scene, and he concluded that some cleaning had occurred prior to his arrival. He found orange syringe caps on the bedroom floor. Pierce also saw several wet stains and red stains on a comforter and on the mattress. The red stains on the comforter presumptively tested positive for blood. A white shirt and a towel on the floor also had red stains that presumptively tested positive for blood. There were similar stains on the floor in a hallway between the bedroom and the kitchen and in the kitchen on the cabinet below the sink. The kitchen trash can contained cleaning wipes, and some of them also had red stains.

[35] On August 4, a forensic pathologist performed an autopsy on Bennett. The pathologist noted that Bennett had bruises around both eyes. She also had “[l]arge dark purple contusions and many abrasions on the upper chest and neck[.]” Tr. Vol. 5, p. 41. Bruises “almost cover[ed] the underside of her chin and [the] front of her neck[.]” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 167. The bruises were caused by individual blunt force injuries that occurred relatively close in time to Bennett's death. Bennett also had extensive scratches or small cuts on the front of her neck. There were scrapes and bruises on her shoulders, forearms, hands, and abdomen.

[36] The pathologist examined the interior of Bennett's neck and head. She saw that there was internal bleeding in the muscles on the front of the neck, under the soft tissue, which was caused by the application of “a significant amount of force” to those muscles. Id. at 191. In addition, Bennett's hyoid bone, which is located under the chin, was broken. The hyoid bone is located high up on the neck and beneath the chin, and trauma to that bone is commonly associated with strangulation rather than an accident. All of the neck injuries were consistent with strangulation.

[37] Bennett also had widespread internal bleeding under her scalp and swelling in her brain. The internal scalp bleeding was consistent with multiple blunt force injuries. The pathologist concluded that these head injuries could have caused Bennett to lose consciousness.

[38] The pathologist saw numerous puncture wounds on Bennett's arms and hands consistent with drug injections. Toxicology testing revealed that Bennett had amphetamine, meth, opioids, and fentanyl in her system when she died. But the cause of death was asphyxia, or lack of oxygen to the brain, caused by strangulation, and the manner of death was homicide. In the pathologist's opinion, Bennett had to have been strangled for approximately five minutes for the neck injuries to have resulted in death.

[39] The police obtained a search warrant for the hotel room where Bond was staying. They found a box for a new cell phone and the shorts that Bond had been wearing when the medics and the police had arrived at Bennett's apartment on August 3. The shorts had several small red stains.

[40] The police submitted several items from Bennett's apartment and Bond's hotel room for DNA testing. The analyst found strong or very strong support for concluding that Bennett had contributed DNA to red stains found on: (1) the mattress, comforter, pillow, and towel in her bedroom; (2) the hallway floor between the bedroom and kitchen; and (3) Bond's shorts and red t-shirt. The analyst found moderate support for concluding that Bennett had contributed DNA to the red stain on the kitchen cabinet door below the sink.

[41] The analyst tested several different cuttings from the white shirt that was found on Bennett's bedroom floor. There was strong support for the proposition that Bond and Bennett had contributed DNA to genetic material found on that shirt. The analyst also discovered a genetic profile for a second male, and further research revealed that the profile was potentially consistent with Anderson's DNA profile.³ Tr. Vol. 3, p. 126.

[42] Later, Netherton listened to the recording of Bond's 911 call, including Bennett's breathing in the background. Netherton recognized that Bennett was displaying a type of breathing called “stridor.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 82. Stridor breathing occurs when there is an obstruction in the airway. Trauma is one of the possible causes for stridor.

6. Later Incidents Involving Bond

[43] On the afternoon of August 5, Muncie Police Officer Taylor Baugh was dispatched to investigate a report of a subject with a gun. As he was driving to the address, a woman in a passing car flagged him down. Both vehicles stopped, and Officer Baugh approached the woman, whose name was Wakia Bond. She was “hysterical” and said she was having a panic attack. Tr. Vol. 3, p. 186. Ms. Bond explained that David Bond was her ex-husband. She further said that when she had arrived at her home, Bond was in a vehicle nearby. He was waving at her, trying to get her to approach him, and he had a gun in his hand.

[44] On the morning of August 6, 2020, Officer Jeremiah Norris of the Daleville Police Department was driving to work in a marked vehicle. He was following a silver Pontiac that stopped suddenly in the road, causing him to also stop suddenly. Officer Norris activated his lights to signal the vehicle to stay stopped, but the driver accelerated and drove off at a high rate of speed. The officer followed the Pontiac for ten to fifteen minutes, noting that the driver drove erratically, including weaving between lanes, running stop signs, and suddenly changing directions. Officer Norris slowed down when the chase entered a residential area, and he briefly lost sight of the vehicle.

[45] When Officer Norris saw the Pontiac again, it had come to a stop in a field. The officer stopped his vehicle and got out. A person, later identified as Bond, was standing in the field with his arms raised. Bond repeatedly yelled at Officer Norris to shoot him, claiming that he had been set up. Another officer arrived and restrained Bond. The officers placed him in Officer Norris's vehicle, where he was read his Miranda rights. As the officer drove him to jail, Bond again said that he had been set up, and he was facing a “life sentence.” State's Ex. 174, at 16:50. During booking at the jail, Bond repeated that he was facing a life sentence. Officer Norris performed a pat-down search, and Bond produced a baggie from his pants and gave it to the officer. The baggie contained a crystalline material that field-tested positive for meth.

7. Filing of Charges and Trial

[46] On August 13, 2020, the State charged Bond with murder, a felony; Level 5 felony resisting law enforcement; and Level 6 felony possession of meth. The State also filed a notice of intent to seek an habitual offender sentencing enhancement.

[47] After several delays, including a change of judge, trial by jury began on February 7, 2025. The prosecutor played for the jury recordings of both police interrogations of Bond, including Bond's denials that he had been wearing a white bloody shirt when he spoke with Jessica Smith. The prosecutor also played excerpts from the surveillance camera recordings, including Smith's and Ashley Bright's brief stop at Bennett's apartment. Neither woman testified at the trial.

[48] Detective Lee was called to the witness stand to testify on direct at several points during the trial. On one occasion, he identified for the jury several pieces of evidence, including the recording of his August 4 interrogation of Bond. On cross-examination, Bond's attorney asked Detective Lee about the scope of his investigation, and the following exchange occurred:

Q: And someone on scene that day was Jessica Smith, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: And she didn't go to the station and give a formal interview on August 3rd, correct?

A: No, not on the 3rd, no.

Q: She eventually came in and gave a statement?

A. Correct.

Q: Okay. And your questions in her statement focused a lot on David?

A. Okay.

Q. Okay. You asked her a lot about a white shirt?

A: Yes.

Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 81-82.

[49] On redirect examination, the prosecutor questioned Detective Lee as follows:

Q: Ms. Price asked you about your questioning of Jessica Smith, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: She asked you why you were asking Ms. Smith - or about asking Ms. Smith about that white t-shirt, right?

A: Correct.

Q: Why were you asking Jessica Smith about a white t-shirt?

A: Jessica explained that when she arrived to drop off the bag, that David answered the door kind of frantically and she witnessed him with a white t-shirt on with blood on it.

Q: So, Jessica Smith told you during your interview that the Defendant, David Bond, answered the door frantic - has [sic] a shirt - a white shirt with blood on it?

A: Correct. I believe she said he grabbed the bag from her and slammed the door.

Q: And she told you that she had arrived there on a bike, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: In your review of the surveillance video, did you then confirm that she was telling the truth about arriving there on a bike?

A: Yes.

Q: In fact, she was there with somebody else, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: Who was that?

A: Was it - I don't remember who she - the other person didn't actually go up to the house - she just rode - like arrived with - on a bike with her.

Q: Was that Ashley Bright?

A: Yeah, Ashley Bright, sorry.

Q: And did you also - was there also an interview done of Ashley Bright?

A: Yes.

Q: Did she confirm Jessica Smith's story?

A: Yes.

Id. at 87-88. At that point, Bond objected on grounds of hearsay, and the trial court sustained his objection.

[50] Bond did not contest his guilt on the charges of resisting law enforcement and possession of meth. The jury determined he was guilty of all three felonies. Next, Bond admitted that he was an habitual offender. The court sentenced Bond to eighty-four years. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[51] Bond argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct while questioning Detective Lee on redirect about what Jessica Smith told him about her visit to Bennett's apartment. He concedes that he did not timely object at trial. Appellant's Br., p. 14. As a result, he claims that the prosecutor's actions amounted to fundamental error.

[52] Before we address the merits of Bond's fundamental error claim, we turn to the State's argument that Bond invited any error arising from Lee's testimony about Smith's statement. “The invited-error doctrine generally precludes a party from obtaining appellate relief for his own errors, even if those errors were fundamental.” Miller v. State, 188 N.E.3d 871, 874-75 (Ind. 2022). But the mere “failure to object,” standing alone, does not amount to an invitation of error. Id. at 875.

[53] In this case, Bond's fundamental error claim arises out of his trial counsel's failure to object. The State argues that the failure to object was strategic, but we disagree. Shortly after Detective Lee testified about Smith's statement, Bond's counsel objected to Lee's testimony about Bright's statement on the same subjects. We reject the State's allegation of invited error and address Bond's claim.

[54] “We evaluate a properly preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct using a two-step analysis.” Castillo v. State, 974 N.E.2d 458, 468 (Ind. 2012). “We first determine whether misconduct occurred, then, if there was misconduct, we assess ‘whether the misconduct, under all of the circumstances, placed the defendant in a position of grave peril to which he or she would not have been subjected’ otherwise.” Id. (quoting Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 835 (Ind. 2006)).

[55] Our standard of review changes where a defendant, like Bond, procedurally defaults a claim of prosecutorial misconduct by failing to timely raise the claim in the trial court. Hessler v. State, 213 N.E.3d 511, 523 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. In this circumstance, Bond “must establish not only the grounds for prosecutorial misconduct but must also establish that the prosecutorial misconduct constituted fundamental error.” Id.

[56] “Fundamental error is an extremely narrow exception to the waiver rule where the defendant faces the heavy burden of showing that the alleged errors are so prejudicial to the defendant's rights as to make a fair trial impossible.” Id. To establish fundamental error, the defendant must show that the trial judge erred in not sua sponte addressing the alleged misconduct because the misconduct (a) constituted clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process and (b) presented an undeniable and substantial potential for harm. Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 668 (Ind. 2014) (quotation omitted), abrogated in part on other grounds by Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1082 (Ind. 2025). “In evaluating fundamental error in this context, we examine all that happened at trial, including the evidence admitted, the closing arguments of the parties, and the instructions to the jury, to determine whether the alleged misconduct had an undeniable and substantial effect on the jury's decision such that a fair trial was not possible.” Ward v. State, 203 N.E.3d 524, 533 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).

[57] Bond claims the prosecutor introduced an “evidentiary harpoon” into the case through Detective Lee's testimony about Smith's statement. Appellant's Br. p. 10. An evidentiary harpoon occurs when a prosecutor places inadmissible evidence before the jury with the deliberate purpose of prejudicing the jurors against the defendant. Jewell v. State, 672 N.E.2d 417, 424 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. “[T]he defendant must show that 1) the prosecution acted deliberately to prejudice the jury and 2) the evidence was inadmissible.” Id.

[58] The State concedes that Detective Lee's testimony was hearsay. Appellee's Br. p. 5. Hearsay is a statement that is made out of court and offered as evidence to provide the truth of the matter asserted. Ind. Evidence Rule 801(c). Hearsay is generally inadmissible. Ind. Evidence Rule 802. Detective Lee told the jurors what Smith had told him out of court, with the apparent intention that they should accept Smith's statement as true. And the trial court excluded on hearsay grounds Detective Lee's similar testimony about what Bright had told him.

[59] Even if Detective Lee's testimony was inadmissible hearsay intended to unfairly prejudice the jury against Bond, we cannot conclude that any error in the admission of the testimony was fundamental. The jury watched both police interrogation videos, during which Detective Lee told Bond what Smith had told him, and Bond denied wearing a white shirt with bloodstains. State's Ex. 24A, at 24:20; State's Ex. 150, at 27:32-40. The trial court instructed the jury that Detective Lee's statements on the recordings were not to be considered as evidence, but jurors were free to consider Bond's answers. Appellant's App. Vol. III, p. 229. Thus, the jury was already aware of Bond's responses to Smith's alleged statement when Detective Lee testified on redirect. The detective's testimony on that point was merely cumulative, and cumulative evidence does not give rise to fundamental error. See Cole v. State, 970 N.E.2d 779, 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (admission of detective's hearsay testimony was not fundamentally erroneous; testimony was cumulative of other testimony properly admitted).

[60] Even so, Bond argues that the admission of Smith's hearsay statement was especially prejudicial because the statement demonstrated, in the context of other evidence, that Smith was unreliable. Bond claims that the forensic pathologist testified that all of Bennett's injuries were inflicted close to her death, and it would have been impossible for him to have had Bennett's blood on his shirt when Smith stopped by the apartment, approximately one hour before he called 911. Appellant's Br. p. 16. Further, Smith was the only person who allegedly saw Bond wearing the white bloody shirt. As a result, Bond reasons that he was severely prejudiced by the jury being exposed to Smith's unreliable statement.

[61] Bond is not viewing the pathologist's testimony in the light most favorable to the judgment. The pathologist said that the bruises and scratches on Bennett's torso and limbs, as well as the blunt force trauma injuries to Bennett's head, could have been inflicted up to several hours before she was fatally strangled. It is possible that Bond had inflicted some injuries upon Bennett well before he fatally strangled her, causing her to bleed before Smith arrived at the house. Therefore, Smith's out-of-court statement had evidentiary support and did not demonstrate unreliability.

[62] In addition, the State presented substantial independent evidence of Bond's guilt. Testimony from the forensic pathologist, the medics, and the crime scene investigator proves that Bennett was beaten and fatally strangled, and the murderer then attempted to clean the scene and make it appear as if Bennett had overdosed. An analyst found strong support for Bond having contributed genetic material to a DNA profile generated from samples taken from the bloody white shirt found in Bennett's bedroom.

[63] Further, Bond admitted that he had done meth with Bennett on the afternoon of the murder. Others testified that he became paranoid and angry when under the influence of that drug. Anderson frequently heard verbal and physical conflicts coming from Bennett's apartment. In addition, Bond had often accused Bennett of cheating on him, most recently on the day before the murder. He was also aware that Bennett claimed she was pregnant with his child, which would have perhaps harmed his relationship with his wife.

[64] Bennett was uninjured when Young and her husband left Bennett at her apartment. The surveillance camera recordings show that Bond arrived at the apartment around 2:20 p.m., immediately after Young left. He stayed for an hour and then left for approximately ten minutes. When he reentered the apartment at around 3:22 p.m., he stayed there until he called 911 at 5:44 p.m. No one else entered or left the apartment during that time. Bond later admitted to Detective Lee that he had interacted with Jessica Smith when she stopped by to deliver a bag. On appeal, Bond concedes that the surveillance cameras showed Smith and Bright stopping by the apartment.

[65] Less than ten minutes before Bond called 911, someone used text messaging apps on Bennett's phone to contact Bennett's acquaintances to say that she needed a card back. The acquaintances responded, but they did not receive any further communications from that phone. Bond had recently accused Bennett of stealing his property, and on the afternoon of the murder he questioned Anderson about a missing card.

[66] When Netherton arrived at the apartment after Bond's 911 call, she spoke with Bond and thought he was acting strangely. Unlike in other overdose cases involving loved ones, Bond did not ask many questions. Instead, he seemed aloof and evaded her questions about what drugs Bennett may have consumed.

[67] Bond told both the 911 operator and Officer Downing that he had called 911 immediately after returning home and finding Bennett in an unresponsive state. Later on August 3, and again on August 4, Bond told Detective Lee that he left the apartment for forty-five minutes to an hour. Upon returning to the apartment, he used the bathroom and then called 911 after discovering Bennett was unresponsive. All of these statements were contradicted by the surveillance recordings.

[68] On August 6, after Bond was confronted by Officer Norris following a vehicle chase, he told the officer to shoot him and claimed that he was facing a life sentence, which was a disproportional response to the charges he faced from that incident (felony resisting law enforcement and felony possession of meth).

[69] Turning to the parties’ closing arguments to the jury, the State's initial closing argument took up twenty-seven pages of the transcript. Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 223-250. The prosecutor spent most of the argument directing the jury's attention to evidence showing that Bennett was murdered rather than the victim of an overdose. He also played portions of Bond's police interviews to prove that Bond's version of events was false and to demonstrate possible motives. During one paragraph of the argument, the prosecutor briefly discussed Smith's statement to the police, characterizing Bond's wearing of the white bloody shirt as a “silent witness” that identified him as the murderer. Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 241-42. And while wrapping up the opening argument, he again referred to Smith's statement that Bond was wearing a white shirt with blood on it. Tr. Vol. 3, p. 249.

[70] During Bond's closing argument, his attorney briefly mentioned Smith's allegation that Bond was wearing a white shirt, saying that it did not make sense. Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 9-10. We cannot conclude that the prosecutor's two references to Smith's out-of-court statement, in the context of a lengthy closing argument and all of the evidence presented to the jury, amounted to unfair prejudice that deprived Bond of a fair trial. See Neville v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1252, 1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (prosecutor's arguments to jury did not amount to fundamental error in context of defense counsel's closing argument and undisputed evidence establishing defendant's guilt), trans. denied. Bond has failed to carry his burden of proving that the error, if any, was so prejudicial to his rights as to make a fair trial impossible. See Wilkes v. State, 7 N.E.3d 402, 405-06 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (any error in admission of vouching testimony by detective was harmless and not fundamental due to other substantial independent evidence supporting conviction).

Conclusion

[71] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[72] Affirmed.

Attorney for Appellant, Scott S. Mandarich, McClure, McClure and Davis, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee, Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Ian A.T. McLean, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

FOOTNOTES

1.   The transcript identifies Young as Megan Melman. We use the last name she provided during her testimony.

2.   The officer who testified about the camera recordings said that the timestamps on the recordings were six minutes behind the actual time.

3.   Anderson had previously rented Bennett's apartment, but he moved into the upstairs apartment when it became available.

Crone, Senior Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.