ILNews

Court affirms murder conviction of man who killed stepdaughter

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A southern Indiana man was not able to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that the court should overturn his convictions of murder and other charges for stabbing his stepdaughter.

Ryan Shelby raised six issues on appeal, including that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request to view the murder scene and independently collect evidence without supervision and that the cumulative effect of several alleged errors required reversal. He sought to overturn his convictions of murder, Class D felony obstruction of justice and two counts of Class A misdemeanor false informing.

Shelby and his teenage stepdaughter Lexi got into an argument late in the evening Oct. 31, 2009, over why Shelby didn’t bring Lexi’s half-sister home from his parents' home. The two had a history of not getting along. Lexi came at Shelby with a knife, after which Shelby disarmed her and then repeatedly stabbed her in the throat and neck. He dragged her behind their home’s backyard shed, where she bled to death.

The judges found the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying Shelby’s motion to view the crime scene because it allowed him supervised access to the scene and allowed his defense to consult outside of the presence of the state. The order also allowed him to collect evidence.

The COA found he waived several claims on appeal, including claims that the trial court erred in failing to give certain jury instructions that he tendered, which combined with other alleged errors, should result in his convictions being overturned. He also waived his claims of prosecutorial misconduct by not moving for a mistrial or admonishment at trial. The judges also held that the fundamental error exception doesn’t apply, and they found no cumulative error.

“The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Shelby’s statements to the police. And to the extent that the trial court erred in limiting the testimony of Shelby’s expert witness, the error was harmless in light of the testimony that was presented by the witness,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote in the 42-page opinion Ryan Shelby v. State of Indiana, 87A01-1207-CR-313.

“Lastly, even if the trial court did abuse its discretion in failing to consider Shelby’s proffered mitigator of ‘residual doubt,’ we would not remand for resentencing because Shelby’s advisory sentence of fifty-five years for the brutal murder of his stepdaughter is not inappropriate.”

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT