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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT