COA overturns bestiality conviction based on confession

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although a Delaware County man admitted to sexually assaulting his roommate’s dog, the Indiana Court of Appeals overturned the man’s bestiality conviction Thursday because the prosecution failed to establish a corpus delicti.

In Andy Shinnock v. State of Indiana, 18A05-1606-CR-1258, Andy Shinnock was charged with bestiality after he admitted to having sex with his roommate’s dog. During roommate Paul Moore’s testimony at trial, Shinnock’s counsel objected to the admission of Shinnock’s confession to Moore that he had attempted to have sex with the dog because corpus delicti had not been established.

Defense counsel also objected to the admission of a recording of Shinnock’s confession to Moore, Moore’s 911 call and Shinnock’s confession to investigators on the basis of a lack of corpus delicti. The Delaware Circuit Court overruled the objections, but did grant the defense’s request for the record to show a continuing objection.

Shinnock was found guilty as charged but mentally ill, but the Indiana Court of Appeal reversed his convictions Thursday based on the defense’s corpus delicti claims.  

Senior Judge John Sharpnack wrote for the unanimous panel that the corpus delicti in the case would at least be a dog whose sex organ had been penetrated by the sex organ of a human male. But the only evidence against Shinnock, other than his confession, was Moore’s testimony that his dogs did not respond to him as usual when he returned home on the day of the alleged assault and that he found Shinnock wearing only a T-shirt and boxers that day, Sharpnack wrote.

Further, there was no evidence of that the dog’s sex organ had been injured, the judge said. Thus, because there was no proof of the crime of bestiality other than Shinnock’s confessions, the admission of that confession was error and Shinnock’s case was remanded to the Delaware Circuit Court.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....