ILNews

COA: No error in denying reckless homicide instruction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The evidence presented at trial did not support a defendant’s request to instruct the jury on reckless homicide as a lesser offense of murder, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

Kendall Johnson was convicted of Class C felony battery and murder in the shooting death of Eric Bell in 2011. Bell came to the home where Johnson and another man were arguing and the three went outside. Witnesses then heard gunshots and found Bell’s body on the ground. He was shot 11 times, including three times in the head and four in the back.

The trial court gave Johnson the advisory sentence of 55 years on the murder conviction and four years on the battery conviction, to be served concurrently.

Johnson argued in Kendall Johnson v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1209-CR-755, that the trial court abused its discretion in declining his jury instruction. Johnson claimed the shooting started out in self-defense, but the trial court pointed out that Johnson shot bell twice at relatively close range, then again while Bell was running away.

“We see no serious evidentiary dispute concerning Johnson’s state of mind when he shot Bell. The State presented two witnesses who testified they heard multiple shots fired. Bell was wounded eleven times … . Johnson admitted shooting Bell twice at close range and continuing to shoot at Bell while running away. Therefore, it reasonably can be inferred Johnson knowingly fired his gun with the intent to hit Bell,” Judge Melissa May wrote.

The judges rejected Johnson’s argument his sentence should be reduced because he acted in self-defense and found that the advisory sentence is appropriate based on his criminal history and the details of this offense.

 

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