ILNews

Justices accept post-conviction relief case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether a man convicted of murder and rape was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel.

The justices accepted just one case last week, Kevin Hampton v. State of Indiana, No. 84S04-1103-PC-161. Kevin Hampton claimed he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because his attorney didn’t argue error in the trial court’s ruling on a final instruction. His DNA matched the DNA profile developed from semen on the victim and he was charged with the crimes.

The trial court instructed the jury on direct and circumstantial evidence using the language of Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction (Criminal) 12.01 (2d ed. 1991), but omitted the last sentence of the pattern instruction. Hampton’s trial attorney objected, arguing the instruction should contain the omitted sentence, but on direct appeal Hampton’s appellate attorney didn’t assign this instruction and objection as prejudicial error.

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that it wasn’t an error in admitting the sentence and found the court’s instruction on proof beyond a reasonable doubt covered the issue and rendered harmless any potential error concerning the necessary proof where the evidence is purely circumstantial.
 

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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT