ILNews

Brother’s previous threat allowed at trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded Monday that a threat made by a man against his brother a year before the man threw hot water on the brother was properly admitted into evidence during trial.

In Michael R. Sudberry v. State of Indiana, 45A03-1206-CR-298, Michael Sudberry appealed his conviction of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury committed against his brother Kenneth Sudberry. The two lived at home with their ailing mother and did not get along. The brothers started fighting Aug. 27, 2011, over a seat at the kitchen table during breakfast. They threw water on each other and pushed each other.

Michael Sudberry stabbed his brother with a pencil; his brother then pushed Sudberry. The altercation ended when Michael Sudberry picked up a pot with hot water, threw it on his brother and then pressed the pot against his face. Kenneth Sudberry had second-degree burns on parts of his upper body.

Michael Sudberry didn’t testify at his trial, but his self-defense claim was placed at issue through a detective’s report and a taped statement he gave to the officer. Kenneth Sudberry later testified that on June 29, 2010, after the two brothers pushed each other, Michael Sudberry said “If you push me again, I will kill you.” No other physical altercations happened until the Aug. 27 incident.

“Kenneth testified that there were no physical altercations between him and Sudberry between the date of the threat and the date of the battery. Thus, a reasonable jury could conclude that Sudberry did not have a reason to act on his threat until the date of the battery. Sudberry notes that he did not carry out his threat – he did not kill Kenneth; however, the evidence was undisputed that Sudberry severely injured Kenneth and that Kenneth received assistance only because he managed to call 911 himself,” Judge Terry Crone wrote in affirming that admittance of the evidence of the threat.

The judges also concluded that the evidence admitted rebuts Michael Sudberry’s claim of self-defense.

 

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!!!

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT