Court Opinion

ID: 9964657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 16:03:52.374674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:38.769049
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                      Apr 30 2024, 9:51 am

                                                                          CLERK
                                                                      Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                         Court of Appeals
                                                                           and Tax Court

                                             IN THE

            Court of Appeals of Indiana
                                       David R. Benjamin,
                                         Appellant-Defendant

                                                     v.

                                          State of Indiana,
                                           Appellee-Plaintiff

                                             April 30, 2024
                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
                                           23A-CR-2367
                               Appeal from the Knox Circuit Court
                           The Honorable Gara U. Lee, Special Judge
                                        Trial Court Cause No.
                                          42C01-1910-F3-18

                                   Opinion by Judge Pyle
                               Judges Bailey and Crone concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2367 | April 30, 2024                   Page 1 of 13
      Pyle, Judge.

      Statement of the Case

[1]   David R. Benjamin (“Benjamin”) appeals, following a jury trial, his conviction

      for Level 3 felony aggravated battery.1 Benjamin argues that the trial court

      abused its discretion by admitting a doctor’s testimony regarding whether the

      victim’s injuries created a substantial risk of death. Benjamin has waived his

      evidentiary appellate challenge because he objected at trial on one ground and

      raised a different ground on appeal. Further, because we conclude that any

      error in the admission of the evidence was harmless, we affirm Benjamin’s

      conviction.

[2]   We affirm.

      Issue
                 Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting
                 testimony from a doctor regarding whether the victim’s injuries
                 created a substantial risk of death.

      Facts
[3]   On September 25, 2019, Benjamin believed that Lawrence Yarber, Jr.

      (“Yarber”) had stolen a friend’s ATV. That evening, Benjamin, along with

      three other men, went to Yarber’s house in Knox County to confront Yarber.

      1
          IND. CODE § 35-42-2-1.5.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2367 | April 30, 2024           Page 2 of 13
      At that time, Yarber and his girlfriend, Jennifer Held (“Held”), were in the

      driveway. Benjamin and Yarber argued about the ATV. Benjamin punched

      Yarber’s face, causing Yarber to fall to the ground. Benjamin “then started

      kicking [Yarber] in his head . . . [and] wouldn’t stop.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 101).

      Benjamin and the other three men eventually left the scene. Held took Yarber

      to the local hospital, which later transported Yarber by helicopter to an

      Evansville hospital. Held “thought [that] [Yarber] was going to die.” (Tr. Vol.

      2 at 103). When Held talked to the police, she identified Benjamin as the

      person who had beaten Yarber.

[4]   Yarber remained in the Evansville hospital for six days, and he was in a

      medically-induced coma for five of those days. Yarber’s “orbital” socket was

      “crushed[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 118). The medical staff wired Yarber’s jaw shut and

      inserted a trach tube and a feeding tube. Yarber’s jaw remained wired for six

      weeks. Yarber signed himself out of the hospital against medical advice.

      Thereafter, Yarber had several return visits to the emergency room for his

      injuries.

[5]   The State charged Benjamin with Level 3 felony aggravated battery and alleged

      that he was an habitual offender. The trial court held a two-day jury trial in

      August 2023. During the State’s opening statement, the prosecutor stated that

      Yarber’s family physician, Dr. Caroline Steinman (“Dr. Steinman”), would be

      testifying about Yarber’s injuries. The prosecutor also stated that Dr. Steinman

      would tell the jury that Yarber’s “injuries caused a substantial risk of death from

      at least two standpoints[,]” including “the potential for severe brain injury” and

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2367 | April 30, 2024          Page 3 of 13
      “bleeding” in his “facial cavity” that could “lead to infection . . . [and] “sepsis.”

      (Tr. Vol. 2 at 92). During Benjamin’s opening statement, his counsel told the

      jury that Benjamin would be disputing the extent of Yarber’s injuries and

      whether there was a substantial risk of death.

[6]   The State presented testimony from, among others, Held, Yarber, and Dr.

      Steinman. During Held’s testimony, she testified to the facts as set forth above.

      Yarber and Dr. Steinman provided further testimony about Yarber’s injuries

      sustained after Benjamin had beaten him as well as testimony about Yarber’s

      hospitalization and treatment following his discharge from the hospital.

[7]   Yarber testified that he did not have any memory of the details of how his

      injuries had occurred. Yarber remembered being at his house and then nothing

      else until he woke up in the hospital from his five-day coma. Yarber further

      testified that when he woke up, he had “freaked out” because his mouth was

      wired shut, he had a trach tube, and he did not know where he was. (Tr. Vol. 2

      at 157). Yarber also testified that his injuries required doctors to “cut [him]

      from ear to ear[,] . . . pull[] [his] face down[,]” and insert a “steel plate[.]” (Tr.

      Vol. 2 at 158). Additionally, Yarber testified that he had memory issues,

      constant numbness on the “whole right side of [his] face[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 159).

[8]   Dr. Steinman testified that, as Yarber’s family physician, she was familiar with

      the injuries that Yarber had sustained in the incident with Benjamin. Dr.

      Steinman, who had reviewed Yarber’s medical records from his

      hospitalizations, provided details of the injuries that Yarber had sustained and

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2367 | April 30, 2024           Page 4 of 13
      explained that the majority of Yarber’s injuries had been to his face and head.

      Specifically, Dr. Steinman testified that Yarber had sustained “severely

      comminuted fractures of the anterior, posterior, medial, lateral, superior, and

      inferior maxillary sinuses[,]” and explained that a “comminuted” fracture

      meant that the bone was “broken up into small pieces and displaced.” (Tr. Vol.

      3 at 7). Yarber also had “a comminuted fracture of [his] anterior and posterior

      right zygomatic arch” or “cheekbone[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 7). Additionally, Dr.

      Steinman testified that Yarber had “[c]omminuted fractures . . . of the medial

      and lateral pterygoid processes[,]” which was “the bone that[] . . . makes up the

      middle of [the] face behind [the] cheekbone.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 8). Moreover,

      Yarber had “bilateral nasal bone fractures[,]” “fractures of the inferior and

      lateral right orbital rim[,]” and a fracture of his “nasal septum” which was “the

      middle of [the] nose kind of back in [the] skull[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 8-9). Dr.

      Steinman opined that the beating of Yarber had to have been a “quite violent”

      encounter “[g]iven the extent of [Yarber’s] facial fractures[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 20).

      Dr. Steinman testified that Yarber still had a metal bar in his cheekbone along

      with multiple little screws and wires that had connected his bone fragments

      together.

[9]   Dr. Steinman also explained that Yarber had had his jaw wired shut to support

      a fracture to his facial bone that was “unstable” to the point that “if you

      grabbed [Yarber’s] teeth, you could move his teeth and his cheek at the same

      time.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 24). Dr. Steinman also explained that Yarber had been

      unable to “keep his throat free of blood . . . [and] spit” and that the hospital

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2367 | April 30, 2024         Page 5 of 13
       medical staff had had to intubate Yarber “to help him breathe because he

       couldn’t protect his airway by himself.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 24). She further

       explained that, because Yarber’s jaw had been wired shut, the hospital doctors

       had had to intubate Yarber by doing a tracheostomy. Moreover, Yarber had a

       “PEG tube[,]” which was “a tube that goes from the outside of [the] belly into

       [the] stomach” to provide nutrition. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 25). Dr. Steinman also

       explained that Yarber had had multiple ER visits after his hospitalization based

       on issues he had had with his two tubes, including an ER visit for a MRSA

       infection with one of the tubes.

[10]   Dr. Steinman also testified that, when she had examined Yarber in her office in

       November 2019, she had diagnosed Yarber as having a traumatic brain injury.

       Dr. Steinman explained how the brain was surrounded by cerebrospinal fluid in

       the skull and how the brain could be injured during a “repeated acceleration

       and deceleration injury[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 17). Additionally, Dr. Steinman

       testified that the side effects of traumatic brain injury included memory deficits

       and mood disorders.

[11]   After Dr. Steinman testified about the details of Yarber’s injuries, the State

       asked Dr. Steinman, “In your medical opinion, do you believe that these

       injuries caused a substantial risk of death?” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 28). At the same time

       that Benjamin objected, Dr. Steinman responded, “Oh, absolutely” to the

       State’s question. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 28). Benjamin’s objection was based on a

       “[l]ack of foundation.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 28). Benjamin further stated that Dr.

       Steinman’s “expert opinion” testimony “require[d] a foundation[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2367 | April 30, 2024         Page 6 of 13
       at 28). Benjamin stated that “substantial risk of death [wa]s a legal term . . . ,

       not a medical term” and that Dr. Steinman had not provided any medical

       testimony regarding “anything that gave rise to any finding of substantial risk of

       death[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 28). The State responded that it “was going to flip that”

       but that it would “ask those questions first.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 28). The trial court

       then told the State that it “may do so.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 28). The State then

       proceeded to ask Dr. Steinman further questions about Yarber’s injuries.

[12]   Dr. Steinman then testified that Yarber had been “confused,” and his face had

       been “covered in blood” when he had arrived at the local ER. (Tr. Vol. 3 at

       29). She also testified that the ER staff, upon noticing “a large amount of blood

       in the back of [Yarber’s] throat,” suctioned his mouth to remove the blood and

       allow him to breathe. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 29). When Dr. Steinman then stated that if

       Yarber had not gone to the local ER then “that blood could have easily -- [,]”

       Benjamin objected. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 29). Specifically, Benjamin objected that this

       specific testimony, or attempted testimony, was “speculative” because Dr.

       Steinman had stated “could of” and had tried to testify about “what might have

       happened . . . in the event [that] [Yarber] hadn’t sought treatment.” (Tr. Vol. 3

       at 29). Benjamin also stated that Dr. Steinman was “not the proper witness to

       make that determination” because she had not been the treating ER doctor and

       that she was trying to “speculate as to this ultimate issue of fact . . . that this

       jury has to determine.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 30). The trial court overruled Benjamin’s

       objection to this portion of Dr. Steinman’s testimony. The State then posed a

       “hypothetical” scenario to Dr. Steinman, asking her what she believed, based

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2367 | April 30, 2024           Page 7 of 13
       on her “medical opinion . . . [and] training and experience,” would have

       happened if Yarber had “sustained this injury, went down, was unconscious,

       [and] nobody was around.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 30). Dr. Steinman replied that “he

       would have breathed in that blood and died.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 30). The doctor

       explained that Yarber “had blood throughout his maxillary sinuses and also in

       his ethmoid sinuses, which [are] the holes in [the] skull” and that he had “blood

       pooling in the back of his throat.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 30).

[13]   The State then questioned Dr. Steinman about the “danger of infection,” and

       the doctor responded that it was “[s]ignificant” with injuries that are close to

       the brain and that it was “easy[] for bacteria from [the] skin or from [the] mouth

       to get inside of those cavities.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 31). The doctor also confirmed

       that such an infection could lead to sepsis. When the State asked Dr. Steinman

       to explain sepsis, Benjamin again objected based on speculation. Benjamin

       stated that he objected to such testimony about “things that might have

       happened” because it was “speculating for the purpose of meeting the standard,

       the ultimate question of fact for this jury to decide.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 31-32). The

       State responded that it was required to prove a substantial risk of death and that

       an infection was a “substantial risk of this particular type of injury based on the

       testimony . . . from this doctor.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 32). The trial court overruled

       the objection and stated that the “weight the jury gives it is up to them.” (Tr.

       Vol. 3 at 32). Dr. Steinman then confirmed that sepsis was “a critical risk of

       [Yarber’s] type of injury” that could be “potentially fatal.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 33).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2367 | April 30, 2024         Page 8 of 13
[14]   Thereafter, Benjamin’s counsel thoroughly cross-examined Dr. Steinman

       regarding her testimony about Yarber’s injuries and specifically questioned her

       about the “substantial risk of death[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 36, 37, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,

       56, 58, 59). Benjamin’s counsel had Dr. Steinman clarify that no treating

       physician had made a specific documentation in the hospital medical records to

       state that Yarber was under a substantial risk of death and that such a term was

       a legal term and not a medical term. Benjamin’s counsel also established that

       Yarber had not been unconscious when he had gone to the ER, had not choked

       on his blood, and had never had sepsis. Additionally, Benjamin’s counsel

       questioned Dr. Steinman about her diagnosis that Yarber had a traumatic brain

       injury and whether Yarber’s memory loss could have been related to his history

       of drug use. Moreover, Benjamin’s counsel had Dr. Steinman confirm that

       Yarber had suffered serious bodily injury.

[15]   During closing arguments, Benjamin argued that the State had failed to prove

       that Yarber’s injuries created a substantial risk of death because the doctor had

       merely testified about things that could have happened but did not. Benjamin

       also argued that there had been “no evidence presented . . . that [Yarber] [wa]s

       in any danger of dying in the future as a result of the injuries he [had] sustained

       in this case.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 84).

[16]   The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of Level 3 felony aggravated

       battery and also on the lesser-included offense of Level 5 felony battery

       resulting in serious bodily injury. The jury found Benjamin guilty of Level 3

       felony aggravated battery, and Benjamin admitted that he was an habitual

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2367 | April 30, 2024          Page 9 of 13
       offender. The trial court imposed a fourteen (14) year sentence, with six (6)

       years executed and eight (8) years suspended to probation for Benjamin’s Level

       3 felony conviction, and the trial court enhanced that sentence by fourteen (14)

       years for his habitual offender adjudication.

[17]   Benjamin now appeals.

       Decision
[18]   Benjamin argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting

       testimony from Dr. Steinman regarding whether Yarber’s injuries created a

       substantial risk of death. The admission and exclusion of evidence falls within

       the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review the admission of evidence

       only for an abuse of discretion. Wilson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1265, 1272 (Ind.

       2002). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly

       against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Conley v.

       State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 871 (Ind. 2012), reh’g denied.

[19]   Benjamin specifically challenges only Dr. Steinman’s response to the State’s

       following question, “In your medical opinion, do you believe that [Yarber’s]

       injuries caused a substantial risk of death?” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 28). At the same time

       that Benjamin objected, Dr. Steinman responded, “Oh, absolutely.” (Tr. Vol. 3

       at 28). Benjamin’s objection was based on a “[l]ack of foundation.” (Tr. Vol. 3

       at 28). However, now on appeal, Benjamin argues that the trial court should

       not have allowed this specific testimony about the substantial risk of death

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2367 | April 30, 2024        Page 10 of 13
       because it violated Indiana Evidence Rule 704.2 Benjamin contends that Dr.

       Steinman’s testimony equated to the doctor determining an ultimate issue

       instead of the jury making such a determination.

[20]   It is well established that a party may not object on one ground at trial and raise

       a different ground on appeal. White v. State, 772 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind. 2002).

       Because Benjamin’s trial objection was limited to foundational concerns and

       did not specifically reference any challenge under Indiana Evidence Rule 704,

       we conclude that he has waived this issue on appeal. See Brittain v. State, 68

       N.E.3d 611, 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (finding waiver when defendant’s

       appellate argument regarding evidence admissibility was different than trial

       objection and noting that “a party may not present an argument or issue to an

       appellate court unless the party raised the same argument or issue before the

       trial court”), trans. denied.

[21]   Benjamin does not acknowledge that his trial objection differs from the basis he

       argues on appeal. Nor does Benjamin argue that Dr. Steinman’s response

       affirming that Yarber’s injuries caused a substantial risk of death constituted

       fundamental error. Thus, we will not engage in such a review. See Bradfield v.

       State, 192 N.E.3d 933, 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022 (explaining that a defendant

       waived his admission of evidence appellate argument by arguing a different

       2
         Indiana Evidence Rule 704(a) provides that “[t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise
       admissible is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.” Rule 704(b) provides that
       “[w]itnesses may not testify to opinions concerning intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or
       falsity of allegations; whether a witness has testified truthfully; or legal conclusions.”

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2367 | April 30, 2024                                 Page 11 of 13
       ground on appeal and also waived any fundamental error claim by not raising it

       on appeal).

[22]   Waiver notwithstanding, and assuming arguendo that the trial court abused its

       discretion by admitting the testimony, we conclude that the admission of

       evidence was harmless error. Our Indiana Supreme Court has explained:

               When an appellate court must determine whether a non-
               constitutional error is harmless, Rule 66(A)’s “probable impact
               test” controls. Under this test, the party seeking relief bears the
               burden of demonstrating how, in light of all the evidence in the
               case, the error’s probable impact undermines confidence in the
               outcome of the proceeding below. Importantly, this is not a
               review for the sufficiency of the remaining evidence; it is a review
               of what was presented to the trier of fact compared to what
               should have been presented. And when conducting that review,
               we consider the likely impact of the improperly admitted or
               excluded evidence on a reasonable, average jury in light of all the
               evidence in the case. Ultimately, the error’s probable impact is
               sufficiently minor when—considering the entire record—our
               confidence in the outcome is not undermined.

       Hayko v. State, 211 N.E.3d 483, 492 (Ind. 2023) (internal citations omitted),

       reh’g denied, cert. denied.

[23]   Our review and consideration of the entire record reveals that Dr. Steinman,

       Held, and Yarber all testified about details of Yarber’s injuries. Indeed, we

       have set forth that detailed testimony in the above facts, and Benjamin did not

       challenge the evidence relating to his specific injuries. Furthermore, during

       Benjamin’s cross-examination of Dr. Steinman, he asked the doctor multiple

       questions about the substantial risk of death. The probable impact of any

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2367 | April 30, 2024        Page 12 of 13
possible error in admitting Dr. Steinman’s response affirming that Yarber’s

injuries caused a substantial risk of death, in light of all the evidence in this

case, is sufficiently minor so as not to undermine our confidence in the outcome

of this case. See id. See also Stahl v. State, 219 N.E.3d 157, 165 (Ind. Ct. App.

2023) (explaining that “expert medical testimony is not required to prove the

substantial risk of death element of aggravated battery” and that, instead, a jury

may rely on its collective common sense and knowledge acquired through

everyday experiences), trans. denied. Accordingly, we affirm Benjamin’s

conviction.

Bailey, J., and Crone, J., concur.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Andrew Bernlohr
Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Sierra A. Murray
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2367 | April 30, 2024          Page 13 of 13