Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1711-CT-2865 | July 12, 2018 Page 1 of 4

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Charles A. Benson

Bunker Hill, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Jan M. Carroll

Kara Kapke

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Charles A. Benson,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

News-Sentinel, Michael 

Christman, Sheryl Krieg, Cindy 

Larson, Lisa Esquivel Long, 

Appellees-Defendants

July 12, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A03-1711-CT-2865

Appeal from the Allen Superior

Court

The Honorable David J. Avery, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

02D09-1702-CT-73

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1711-CT-2865 | July 12, 2018 Page 2 of 4

[1] Charles Benson appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his complaint against 

the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel newspaper, as well as its current and former 

reporters and editors (collectively, News-Sentinel), for defamation. Finding no 

error, we affirm.

[2] In January 2016, Benson was charged with attempted murder and related 

offenses after shooting a Fort Wayne police officer. In the months following 

that arrest, the News-Sentinel published multiple articles related to the criminal 

proceedings. In the articles, the newspaper often referenced Benson’s lengthy 

criminal history, including a 2014 murder charge. In one February 2016 article, 

the News-Sentinel published a 2014 mugshot of Benson, noting in the caption 

to the photograph that Benson was a former murder suspect facing a new 

attempted murder charge. Benson was ultimately found guilty and found to be 

an habitual offender; he was sentenced to over sixty-two years in prison. See 

Benson v. State, 73 N.E.3d 198 (Ind. Ct. 2017) (affirming Benson’s convictions in 

his direct appeal), trans. denied.

[3] On February 6, 2017, Benson filed a complaint against the News-Sentinel. The 

News-Sentinel filed an answer, motion to stay, and motion for judgment on the 

pleadings based on the Frivolous Prisoner Claim Statute.1 Benson also filed a 

separate lawsuit based on similar grounds against WANE-TV.2 On June 29, 

 

1

Ind. Code § 34-58-1-1 et seq.

2 A separate opinion related to Benson’s lawsuit against WANE-TV is available at Benson v. WANE-TV 15, 

No. 02A04-1711-CT-02866 (Ind. Ct. App. July 12, 2018).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1711-CT-2865 | July 12, 2018 Page 3 of 4

2017, the trial court held a consolidated hearing and status conference in the 

two lawsuits. Benson appeared pro se by phone and did not object to the 

consolidation. On September 18, 2017, the trial court issued an order granting 

judgment in favor of the News-Sentinel. Benson now appeals.

[4] The General Assembly enacted the Frivolous Prisoner Claim Statute “to screen 

and prevent abusive and prolific offender litigation in Indiana.” Smith v. Ind. 

Dep’t of Corr., 883 N.E.2d 802, 804 (Ind. 2008). The statute requires trial courts 

to screen complaints filed by offenders as soon as such complaints are 

received.34 The trial court must determine whether the offender’s claim is 

frivolous, is a claim upon which no relief may be granted, or is a claim that 

seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. I.C. § 34-58-1-2. A 

claim is frivolous if, among other things, it lacks an arguable basis in law or 

fact. Id.

[5] Truth is a complete defense to defamation. E.g., Melton v. Ousley, 925 N.E.2d 

430, 437 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010); see also Journal-Gazette Co. v. Bandido’s, Inc., 712 

N.E.2d 446, 457 (Ind. 1999) (holding that the plaintiff has the burden to prove 

 

3

In this case, the trial court candidly acknowledged that it was “unaware of the need to conduct the review” 

of Benson’s complaint upon receipt of the pleading. Appellees’ App. Vol. II p. 10. The News-Sentinel 

brought the need for the review to the trial court’s attention, at which time it complied. We see no reason 

that this delay should affect the outcome of this case.

4 Benson argues that the trial court erred by holding a consolidated hearing in this case and the case involving 

WANE-TV. Initially, we note that under the Frivolous Prisoner Claim Statute, he is not entitled to a hearing 

at all. I.C. § 34-58-1-1 et seq. Furthermore, he did not object to the consolidation below; consequently, he has 

waived it. Finally, he does not explain how he was prejudiced by the consolidation. For all these reasons, 

this argument is unavailing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1711-CT-2865 | July 12, 2018 Page 4 of 4

falsity). In this case, the statements complained of by Benson regarding his 

criminal history, including a 2014 murder charge, are true. Indeed, Benson

does not argue, nor did he plead, otherwise. See Bandido’s, 712 N.E.2d at 456 

(holding that to establish actual malice, which is a required element of 

defamation claims, plaintiff must show that statements were false or made with 

reckless disregard of whether they were false). He argues that the newspaper’s 

use of a 2014 mugshot was inaccurate and/or misleading, but that does not 

mean that it was false.5 Benson concedes that it was a picture of him, it just 

happened to be a mugshot from two years earlier. 

[6] Given that all the statements Benson highlights are true, and that the

photograph was of Benson, we find that the News-Sentinel properly found 

refuge in the defense of truth. As a result, the trial court did not err by finding 

Benson’s claims to be frivolous.6

[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

 

5

It has never been determined in Indiana whether publication of a photograph of a plaintiff can constitute 

defamation. We assume solely for argument’s sake that it can, but leave the underlying question for another 

day and a different case.

6 Benson also included claims related to the News-Sentinel’s 2014 reporting on a prior murder charge, 

arguing that the newspaper defamed him by including information regarding his criminal history. The trial 

court found that these claims are time-barred. Even if they were not time-barred, all of the information 

reported by the News-Sentinel was true; therefore, Benson cannot establish defamation and the trial court 

properly entered judgment in favor of the newspaper on these claims.