ILNews

COA reverses rape conviction in cold case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals today affirmed a man's recent conviction for a murder he committed more than 20 years ago, but it reversed his rape conviction on insufficient evidence. The state failed to file a charge in which it had evidence to support a conviction of a sexual attack against the victim.

In Jimmy Atteberry v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0808-CR-705, Jimmy Atteberry was arrested in St. Louis in 2006 for the 1985 sexual assault and murder of a 19-year-old Indianapolis woman. DNA testing in 2006 of semen found in the victim's underwear led to Atteberry, who lived in Indianapolis under an alias at the time of the murder.

When police went to St. Louis to question Atteberry, Sgt. Mark Albert of what is now the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department didn't tell Atteberry to what police department he belonged. Albert told Atteberry he wanted to question him about background information. Atteberry was read his Miranda rights and signed a form in which "St. Louis" appeared to be crossed out next to Albert's name. The conversation eventually turned to the murder of L.L. and once the police officer told Atteberry he had a warrant to get a DNA sample, Atteberry stopped talking and requested an attorney.

The state charged him with murder and Class A felony rape, but then it attempted to change the rape charge to criminal deviate conduct. It withdrew its motion believing the trial court wouldn't grant it. The trial court denied Atteberry's motion to suppress his statement to police claiming police deception because he didn't know where Albert was from and based on a Miranda form.

The Court of Appeals upheld the admittance into evidence of Atteberry's statement to police and that his DNA had been in a national DNA database without naming the specific database. Absent any coercion, the fact Albert didn't tell Atteberry he was from Indianapolis and planned to question him regarding L.L.'s rape and murder doesn't render Atteberry's decision to waive his Miranda rights involuntarily.

The state's witness's testimony that Atteberry's DNA was in a national database was relevant to show why he was a suspect in an Indianapolis murder. There wasn't any evidence that informed the jury that only convicted felons could have their DNA profiles put into this database, wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

Because the state didn't have evidence to prove Atteberry raped L.L., the appellate judges reversed his conviction and remanded for it and his sentence to be vacated. The evidence proved sexual trauma to L.L.'s anus, semen in her underwear, but no trauma to or semen in her vagina. This isn't enough evidence to support the charge of Class A felony rape at the time it was committed, wrote the judge. The state argued the fact she had been assaulted anally and semen was found in the underwear was enough to support the conviction, but the judges disagreed. Judge Mathias noted "if we were writing on a clean slate, we might be more inclined to agree with the State's position. But we are not."

Relying on caselaw, the appellate court concluded there was enough evidence to support the criminal deviate conduct charge but not the rape charge.

"The State's failure to properly charge Atteberry is no mere technicality that we may overlook. Fundamental due process and common sense both require that the State must prove the elements of the crime it charged, not the elements of some other crime the defendant may have committed," he wrote.

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT