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
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