Marc Benton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A02-1606-CR-1475

Marc Benton was convicted by a jury of Level 6 felony pointing a firearm after an incident in which he chased Andre Murdock by car, shouted threats, and pointed a Glock (with extended magazine) and a short-barreled rifle at Murdock.
Murdock, while driving and frightened, called his mother Cathleen and later 911; Cathleen testified that Murdock sounded "panicked."
Police arrived within roughly 5–15 minutes; officers spoke to Murdock and then to Benton, who admitted having guns in his car; officers saw and seized the weapons.
At trial, the court admitted testimony recounting Murdock’s out-of-court statements to his mother and to Officer Williams-Ervin over Benton’s hearsay objections.
Murdock also testified at trial that Benton chased him and pointed guns at him; the jury convicted Benton and he received a 365‑day sentence, with 339 days suspended to probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether testimony recounting Murdock’s statements to his mother was hearsay and inadmissible	State: Statements were admissible under hearsay exceptions (present-sense impression or excited utterance)	Benton: Testimony was inadmissible hearsay and should have been excluded	Court: Admitted; fit present-sense and excited-utterance exceptions; no abuse of discretion
Whether testimony recounting Murdock’s statements to police was hearsay and inadmissible	State: Admissible as an excited utterance given timing and Murdock’s upset state	Benton: Testimony was inadmissible hearsay	Court: Admitted as excited utterance (few minutes elapsed; declarant still upset); no abuse of discretion
If admission was error, whether it was harmless given other evidence	State: Any error would be harmless because statements were cumulative of other admissible evidence (911 tapes; Murdock’s trial testimony)	Benton: Admission was prejudicial and requires reversal	Court: Even if erroneous, admission was harmless because cumulative of unobjected evidence; conviction stands
Standard of review for evidentiary rulings	N/A (procedural)	N/A	Trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; here none found

Boatner v. State, 934 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App.) (standard for excited-utterance admissibility and abuse-of-discretion review)
Jones v. State, 780 N.E.2d 373 (Ind.) (present-sense impression admissibility)
Fowler v. State, 829 N.E.2d 459 (Ind.) (excited-utterance analysis and timing/context considerations)
Harrison v. State, 32 N.E.3d 240 (Ind. Ct. App.) (cumulative-evidence harmless-error principle)
Boatner v. State, 934 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App.) (admissibility criteria for excited utterances)
Gordon v. State, 743 N.E.2d 376 (Ind. Ct. App.) (examples of victim distress supporting excited-utterance admission)
Young v. State, 980 N.E.2d 412 (Ind. Ct. App.) (recognizing Fowler for hearsay-rule purposes)
Roberts v. State, 894 N.E.2d 1018 (Ind. Ct. App.) (noting limits of Fowler on Confrontation Clause issues)