Leon Benson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A04-1604-PC-897

Background

In August 1998 Leon Benson was charged with murder and unlawful carrying of a handgun after Kasey Schoen was shot in his truck; two eyewitnesses (Christy Schmitt and Donald Brooks) identified Benson at trial.
Benson was convicted by a jury in July 1999 and sentenced to an aggregate term of 60 years; the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal.
Benson filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition in 2013 (amended 2014) alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that newly discovered scientific evidence regarding eyewitness identification required a new trial.
At the PCR evidentiary hearings the court heard: (1) testimony from Dakarai Fulton, who claimed a different shooter (Joseph Webster) but did not come forward until incarcerated and had credibility problems; (2) testimony from Dr. Geoffrey Loftus, an expert on perception/eyewitness ID offering studies on distance/lighting and blurring effects developed after the trial; and (3) challenges to counsel’s trial choices (witness decisions, cross-examination, hearsay admission).
The post-conviction court found counsel’s representation was vigorous, Fulton’s proffered testimony lacked credibility and would not have changed the outcome, Brooks’s prior statement was cumulative, and Dr. Loftus’s evidence would be merely impeaching and would not likely change the verdict.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of PCR relief, concluding Benson failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland and failed to meet the multi-factor test for newly discovered evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Benson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Ineffective assistance — failure to call Fulton	Trial counsel was ineffective for not calling Fulton, an eyewitness who would identify another shooter (Webster)	Fulton was not credible; calling him was strategic and would not likely change the verdict	Counsel’s decision not to call Fulton was strategic; no deficient performance or prejudice shown
Ineffective assistance — failure to question officer about Fulton/photo arrays	Counsel should have exposed that others saw Webster’s photo array and that officer minimized Webster’s role	Fulton’s account lacked credibility; highlighting it could harm defense; other IDs implicated Benson	No deficient performance; strategy to avoid spotlighting Fulton was reasonable
Ineffective assistance — failure to object to admission of Brooks’s prior statement	Counsel should have objected to reading Brooks’s prior statement to jury	Trial counsel previously objected in first trial; statement was used to refresh recollection and was cumulative	No prejudice shown; admission largely cumulative so counsel not ineffective
Newly discovered scientific evidence re: eyewitness ID	Post-conviction new research (Dr. Loftus) shows distance/lighting would make identification unreliable and warrants new trial	The factors (distance, lighting, duration) were known and explored at trial; Loftus’s study would be impeachment, not truly new, and unlikely to change result	Evidence was largely impeachment/cumulative; Benson failed to satisfy the multi-factor test for new evidence; no new-trial relief

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
Williams v. State, 706 N.E.2d 149 (PCR is a narrow collateral remedy; standards for post-conviction review)
Taylor v. State, 840 N.E.2d 324 (standards for newly discovered evidence and eyewitness-ID scrutiny)
Reed v. State, 866 N.E.2d 767 (clarifies Strickland application in Indiana)
Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739 (burden of proof and standard of review in PCR proceedings)
Godby v. State, 809 N.E.2d 480 (post-conviction factual-findings are given deference)
Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674 (appellate review standards for PCR findings)
Grigsby v. State, 503 N.E.2d 394 (decision to call witnesses is a trial strategy)