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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT