Justin Bennett, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Justin Bennett appeals his convictions for Level 5 felony battery and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. He raises one issue for our review: whether the trial court violated the federal and state constitutions by allowing the jury to rewatch video evidence during deliberations without Bennett present. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 22, 2025, Officer Noabell Mateos and Officer Joshua Brown of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department responded to a welfare check at Bennett's home. While en route, the officers discovered there was an active warrant for Bennett's arrest. After arriving and assessing whether Bennett needed medical care, the officers approached him to detain him on the warrant. Bennett “started swinging” at the officers and a physical struggle ensued. Tr. Vol. II p. 68. During the struggle Bennett headbutted Officer Brown, kicked Officer Mateos, and ran out of the house. The officers chased Bennett, and he was apprehended and arrested.

[3] The State charged Bennett with two counts of Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury and one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. A jury trial was held in September 2025. During trial, the State admitted footage from Officer Mateos’ body-worn camera, and that video was played for the jury and all parties.

[4] During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the court. The following exchange then occurred:

THE COURT: So, we do have two juror questions. Well, one's more of a statement. They want to re-watch the video. So that is one. And ․ my process for that is that we all leave the Courtroom, [court staff] stay in, and they play the video from what was played without comment․ So, does anyone have any objection to that procedure?

[Defense counsel]: No.

[State]: No objection.

THE COURT: State any objection to that procedure?

Id. at 119. The jury was then brought into the courtroom, and the video was played outside the presence of the parties. The jury later found Bennett guilty of one count of Level 5 felony battery and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.¹ The trial court sentenced Bennett to an aggregate four years in the Indiana Department of Correction. Bennett now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Bennett argues the court violated the federal and state constitutions when “it allowed the jury to review evidence without Bennett present[.]” Appellant's Br. p. 7. We review constitutional questions de novo. Taylor v. State, 236 N.E.3d 700, 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). Bennett cites to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution, both of which “guarantee the right of an accused to be present in the courtroom at every stage of the proceedings requiring the presence of the jury.” James v. State, 613 N.E.2d 15, 24 (Ind. 1993).

[6] In support of his argument, Bennett cites Hagenmeyer v. State, 683 N.E.2d 629 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), reh'g denied, trans. denied. In that case, while the jury was deliberating, the foreman informed the trial court that the jury wanted to review tapes of the victims’ testimony. Over the defendant's objection, the trial court allowed the jury to review the tapes with only court staff present. The jury ultimately convicted the defendant. On appeal, we reversed, holding the defendant had a right to be present while the jury reviewed the testimony.

[7] However, after Hagenmeyer, our Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Robinson v. State, 699 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 1998). There, the jury began deliberations and thereafter requested to see certain photos that had been admitted at trial. The court sent the requested photos to the jury room over the defendant's objection. He later appealed, arguing the court's chosen procedure of providing the jury with the photos outside his presence violated the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution. The Court held:

The Sixth Amendment right of the accused “to be present in the courtroom at every stage of his trial” is rooted in theConfrontation Clause. Ridley v. State, 690 N.E.2d 177, 180 (Ind.1997) (quoting Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970)). This right extends to situations related to the presentation of witnesses or evidence, during which the right of cross examination is implicated. Id. Allowing jurors to view photographs or other exhibits during their deliberations does not deny Robinson an opportunity to confront or cross examine. We find no Sixth Amendment violation.

Robinson also claims a violation of [Article 1, Section 13] of the Indiana Constitution, which protects a defendant's right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of the proceedings that requires the presence of the jury. Cape v. State, 272 Ind. 609, 611, 400 N.E.2d 161, 163 (1980). There is no statutory or constitutional requirement that the jury be returned to the courtroom for the viewing of photographs. Accordingly, Robinson's state constitutional right to be present at all stages requiring the presence of the jury was not implicated.

Id. at 1150-51.

[8] We note the evidence at issue in Hagenmeyer was trial testimony, while the evidence in Robinson was photographs. See Powell v. State, 644 N.E.2d 855, 858 (Ind. 1994) (finding that because “the tapes given to the jury [to review during deliberations] were not of trial testimony” there was no constitutional violation). Here, the evidence replayed for the jury was previously admitted body-worn camera footage, not testimony. As such, this case is more akin to Robinson and there was no error in replaying the footage outside Bennett's presence.

[9] But even if the court did err, Bennett failed to object and does not now argue the error is fundamental. See James, 613 N.E.2d at 25 (holding that although the trial court erred in publishing evidence to the jury outside the defendant's presence, defendant must show fundamental error because he did not object).² As such, he has waived this claim of error for our review. We therefore affirm Bennett's convictions.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   At the close of the State's case-in-chief, Bennett moved for a directed verdict on one of the counts of Level 5 felony battery, which the court granted.

2.   Bennett acknowledges James requires defendants to show fundamental error in these circumstances but argues “the law should change.” Appellant's Br. p. 10. This is essentially a request for us to overturn the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in James. We do not have the authority to do so as an intermediate appellate court, as “we are bound by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and are not at liberty to ‘reconsider’ that precedent.” Hill v. State, 122 N.E.3d 979, 982 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citing Minor v. State, 36 N.E.3d 1065, 1074 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)).

Scheele, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.