Jerid T. Bennett v. State of Indiana
5 N.E.3d 498
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- confidential informants provided reliable information Bennett engaged in illegal drug activity at his Paoli residence
- surveillance on December 6, 2011 captured Sugarman arriving, making a buy, and being arrested for drugs
- Sugarman admitted Bennett sold him cocaine for $50 and texted about drugs, linking Bennett to Cocaine
- officers obtained a search warrant based on CI corroboration and Sugarman’s statements, leading to substantial evidence at Bennett’s residence
- charges: Class B dealing in cocaine, Class D possession of cocaine, Class D maintaining a common nuisance, Class A marijuana possession; Bennett convicted after jury trial
- issue preservation and post-trial amendments included; possession conviction later vacated for double jeopardy grounds
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of search-warrant evidence | State contends search-warrant evidence was supported by probable cause | Bennett argues warrant lacked probable cause | Probable cause supported; admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Admission of text-message exhibits under 404(b) | State argues text messages are intrinsic and admissible to complete the story | Bennett asserts improper 404(b) use | Exhibits intrinsic to charged offense; no reversible error; admission harmless |
| Amendment of charging information | State may amend for immaterial defects/time; no prejudice | Bennett challenges timing and prejudice | Amendment permitted; time not essential; no prejudice |
| Double jeopardy—possession vs dealing | N/A | Same cocaine used to support both charges | Conviction for possession vacated as barred by double jeopardy |
| Rebuttal use of text messages and discovery | State properly used messages in rebuttal; discovery adequate | Bennett claims discovery violation | No discovery violation; rebuttal use permissible; authentication addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Spillers, 847 N.E.2d 949 (Ind. 2006) (probable cause requires totality of circumstances; hearsay corroboration factors explained)
- Breitweiser v. State, 704 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (probable cause stability when informants’ info relates to ongoing crime)
- Poe v. State, 775 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (time/place not essential when time not element of offense)
- McIntyre v. State, 717 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. 1999) (amendment of information; form vs substance)
- Hape v. State, 903 N.E.2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (text messages are intrinsic to phone; separate authentication only if purpose unique)