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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT