ILNews

Appellate court upholds criminal recklessness conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals determined there was sufficient evidence to uphold a man’s conviction of criminal recklessness regarding his firing of a gun.

In Kevin Hobson v. State of Indiana, No. 36A01-1103-CR-144, Kevin Hobson argued there was insufficient evidence to prove he was the person who shot at Andrew Kern’s Chevy Blazer after Kern stopped the car near Hobson’s home and a former business known as the Pit Stop because passenger Tanner Pruett said he felt sick. While the two men were out of the car, they saw a man approach holding a handgun and saw the man shoot into the air. Two bullets hit the car as they drove away.

Hobson had called police to report a suspicious vehicle that he identified as a Chevy Blazer. He said when he approached the car, the driver drove away and he fired two shots into the air. Police believed that Kern’s Blazer was the one Hobson shot.

He was convicted of Class D felony criminal recklessness, but Hobson argued that Ferrell v. State, 656 N.E.2d 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), supports his argument that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he was the one who shot Kern’s Blazer. The COA found Ferrell – a case in which the defendant was one of many people to fire gunshots at a house, but was unable to be identified by the victim – to be distinguishable.

“Hobson admitted to firing several shots as a Blazer drove away from the Pit Stop, and Kern’s Blazer was struck by several bullets. This is sufficient evidence to establish that Hobson fired the shots, and Ferrell is not controlling,” wrote Senior Judge John Sharpnack.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT