ILNews

Court: delayed rape conviction OK

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant's rape conviction, finding his due process rights weren't violated when charges were filed in 2005 for a rape that happened nearly 25 years earlier.

In Thomas N. Schiro v. State of Indiana, No. 10A01-0701-CR-21, Thomas Schiro appealed his conviction of felony rape, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charges brought against him in 2005 for two rapes that occurred in 1980 and by admitting his written sexual autobiography and a photograph of his victim with her disabled daughter.

Schiro was in prison in 2005 when the state filed rape charges against him, alleging he had committed two rapes in late 1980. Schiro was in prison following his conviction for felony murder of an Evansville woman in February 1981. He was originally sentenced to death, which is why the state failed to file the rape charges against him for the two rapes in which both women at the time identified Schiro as their attacker. However, the Indiana Supreme Court set aside his death sentence in 1996 and imposed a 60-year sentence instead.

The state reopened the investigation into the rapes in 1997 but couldn't locate L.S., one of the victims. The state also had trouble finding Schiro's former girlfriend, who they believed was a key prosecution witness. Eventually, G.G., the other victim, L.S., and Schiro's ex-girlfriend were all found by 2005. The state charged Schiro with felony rape and felony criminal deviate conduct against both G.G. and L.S. Schiro filed motions to dismiss the charges, which the trial court denied.

The state also allowed portions of Schiro's sexual "autobiography" - written during a mental evaluation prior to his murder trial - which chronicled rapes, sexual assaults, and other crimes into evidence, as well as a photograph of L.S. with her disabled child. Schiro was found guilty on the charges committed against L.S., but not G.G. He was sentenced only on the rape charge because the statute of limitations had run out on the criminal deviate conduct charge. The trial court imposed a 40-year sentence.

On appeal, Schiro failed to show the state's delay in filing the charges was inexcusable. It would have been a waste of taxpayer money to prosecute him for the G.G. and L.S. rape cases while Schiro was in prison on a death sentence. Once his sentence was reduced, the prosecution opened the case and waited until they had both victims and a key witness before proceeding with the charges, wrote Judge James Kirsch.

"Schiro has failed to establish that the evidence is without conflict and leads inescapably to the conclusion that he is entitled to a dismissal. Consequently, we find no trial court error in its decision to deny Schiro's motion to dismiss on the basis of prosecutorial vindictiveness," he wrote.

In regards to the admission of Schiro's sexual autobiography, the Court of Appeals concluded the probative value of the statements wasn't substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, so there was no error in admitting portions of the text. The trial court also didn't err in admitting the photograph of L.S. with her disabled daughter because L.S. had already testified that her daughter was at home at the time of the attack and had cerebral palsy. Even if the state excluded the photograph, there was enough evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer Schiro's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge wrote.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT