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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT