Charles A. Benson v. State of Indiana, 73 N.E.3d 198

In January 2016 Officer Geiger initiated a traffic stop; passenger Charles A. Benson (alias given) fled on foot and brandished a gun during a ~90‑second pursuit.
Benson fired at Officer Geiger on two separate occasions during the chase; Geiger returned fire and ultimately subdued and arrested Benson; no one was hit.
State charged Benson with attempted murder (one count), resisting law enforcement, criminal recklessness, unlawful possession of a firearm (later dismissed), and habitual/offender/firearm enhancements; jury convicted on attempted murder, resisting, and recklessness; found habitual offender.
Benson received an aggregate sentence of 62.5 years (40 + enhancement + consecutive terms) and appealed solely contending the trial court erred by not giving a specific unanimity instruction.
The key factual dispute for the unanimity issue: the jury heard evidence of two distinct acts of firing at the officer but the State charged only one count of attempted murder and did not designate which discrete act formed the basis for the charge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to give a Baker‑style unanimity instruction was fundamental error	State: no error; instructions adequate because only one charged attempt matched the evidence	Benson: omission was fundamental because jury heard evidence of two separate shootings and might not have been unanimous about which acted as the attempt	Court: No fundamental error — continuous‑crime doctrine applied; the two shootings formed one continuous attempt so a Baker instruction was unnecessary

Baker v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. 2011) (trial courts should give a specific unanimity instruction when evidence shows multiple distinct offenses greater in number than charged)
Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2006) (defines narrow fundamental‑error exception)
Pope v. State, 737 N.E.2d 374 (Ind. 2000) (error must be blatant and make a fair trial impossible to be fundamental)
Fisher v. State, 291 N.E.2d 76 (Ind. 1973) (guilty verdicts in criminal cases must be unanimous)
Walker v. State, 932 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (continuous‑crime doctrine: temporally and factually compressed acts may be a single transaction)
Nunn v. State, 695 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (two near‑contemporaneous gunshots at an officer constituted one attempted murder)