ILNews

Court affirms, denies challenge to DNA evidence, new mid-trial witness

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Court of Appeals today affirmed a man’s convictions and sentence for felony robbery despite his challenge to whether the trial court properly admitted DNA evidence and allowed the testimony of a witness discovered mid-trial.

In Charles J. Kennedy v. State of Indiana, No. 89A04-0907-CR-380, Charles Kennedy appealed his convictions and 27-year sentence for Class A felony robbery and Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery. In addition to addressing whether the trial court properly admitted DNA evidence implicating Kennedy and permitting the testimony of a witness not discovered until mid-trial, the court was asked whether Kennedy’s sentence was inappropriate

On April 2, 2007, then-16-year-old Charles Kennedy and Derek Willis were driving around Richmond and discussed beating up and robbing someone. At around 10 p.m., they followed a man walking along the street. Willis first threw a rock at the man’s leg but the man kept walking. Kennedy then approached the man and hit him in the face with a chunk of asphalt. Kennedy took the man’s wallet, and Willis took a backpack that contained a laptop computer. The man, who could not remember anything about the attack, suffered a fractured skull and a collapsed lung.

A few weeks later, Willis confessed to police and told them of Kennedy’s role in the robbery. The state charged Kennedy and Willis with one count of Class A felony robbery. Kennedy and Willis filed what were effectively plea agreements in which both would plead guilty to Class B felony robbery, with Willis receiving a sentence of 15 years with 5 years suspended and Kennedy receiving a sentence of 20 years with 5 years suspended. Willis followed through with his plea and was sentenced accordingly. Kennedy then got new counsel and withdrew his agreement. On Jan.29, 2008, the state amended the information against Kennedy to include the Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery charge.

Indiana State Police lab DNA analyst Nicole Keeling conducted DNA testing on the piece of asphalt that had been used to bludgeon the victim. She issued during the next few months three separate certificates of analysis that concluded the victim was the source of the major DNA profile found on the asphalt, and that Kennedy “cannot be excluded” as a contributor to DNA on the asphalt. She also concluded that Willis’ DNA was not found on the asphalt.

The jury found Kennedy guilty Oct. 23, 2008, and on May 20, 2009, the trial court sentenced Kennedy to 27 years with 3 years suspended on each Class A felony charge, with the sentences to run concurrently.

Kennedy challenged the admissibility of the DNA on procedural grounds for alleged violation of discovery rules and on substantive grounds for the state’s alleged failure to establish the scientific veracity of the test results. Kennedy’s counsel during trial had brought in Ranajit Chakraborty, a nationally recognized DNA analysis expert, who vigorously challenged the underpinnings of Keeling’s test results, questioning how Keeling conducted the testing.  

“Kennedy is challenging the very highly technical details of how Keeling conducted her testing. We believe this is the very reason the rules of evidence provide for expert witness testimony. The details of how DNA testing is conducted are beyond the ready grasp of laypersons, or judges and lawyers for that matter. Furthermore, DNA testing is not always a black-and-white science. Keeling, whom Kennedy recognizes as a qualified expert in this field, testified that DNA analysts almost always have to exercise some degree of discretion in testing. Chakraborty also agreed that trained and qualified DNA analysts can have reasonable disagreements regarding proper test results. We believe this clearly is a case where the dispute between Keeling and Chakraborty regarding the precise details of her testing methods goes to the weight of her results, not their admissibility. Kennedy was permitted to and in fact did present to the jury a detailed critique of Keeling’s methods. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the results into evidence,” wrote Judge Michael Barnes.

Regarding witness Megan Felty, she was not discovered as a state’s witness until the middle of Kennedy’s trial. Felty had been Kennedy’s high school classmate and claimed that he’d told her in October 2007 about his participation in the robbery. She had not told anyone until Oct. 8, 2008, when she told her father, who called the prosecutor’s office. Kennedy didn’t seek a continuance with his motion to exclude Felty’s testimony and he even refused the trial court’s offer of a one-day continuance in order to investigate her possible testimony. Kennedy therefore waived any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision to permit Felty to testify. For guidance, the court relied on Wilson v. State, 533 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. 1989), and noted there was no indication the state engaged in any misconduct.

In addressing Kennedy’s argument that his aggregate 27-year sentence, with 3 years suspended, is inappropriate, the court disagreed and affirmed.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT