ILNews

Court reverses feticide convictions on double jeopardy grounds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The man who shot a pregnant teller during a bank robbery, which led to the death of her twins, had his two felony feticide convictions vacated by the Indiana Court of Appeals because of double jeopardy violations.

Brian Kendrick, who was convicted of Class A felony attempted murder, Class B felony robbery, two counts of Class C felony feticide, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license, argued that his violations for attempted murder and feticide violated the Indiana Constitution’s double jeopardy clause. During a robbery of a bank in Indianapolis in 2008, Kendrick jumped over the counter and shot teller Katherine Shuffield in the abdomen. She was pregnant and as a result of her injuries, the babies had to be delivered at 22 weeks gestation. One was stillborn and the other survived only a few hours after delivery.

The Court of Appeals determined in Brian Kendrick v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1003-CR-300, that the evidentiary facts used to establish the feticide convictions established all of the elements of the attempted murder conviction. The convictions resulted from one act – the shooting of Shuffield in the stomach. The state presented additional evidence regarding her pregnancy and resulting termination to establish the feticide convictions, but didn’t present any additional evidence to establish attempted murder, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander.

The judges remanded for re-sentencing, noting the trial court may now consider Shuffield’s pregnancy and termination of it in crafting Kendrick’s sentence for attempted murder. But, the court can’t impose an aggregate sentence in excess of 53 years, his original aggregate sentence, wrote Judge Friedlander.

The appellate court also found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding witness Gilberto Mendez unavailable for trial, as the state made a good faith effort to obtain his presence at trial. Mendez believed he was supposed to testify at 1 p.m. on a Wednesday, but the prosecution told him that wasn’t the case. Actually, it was the defense that had him scheduled to testify. The prosecution told Mendez to be prepared to testify the next day, but instead he left to work in Kentucky.

The judges also concluded that Kendrick’s challenge to three statements made by prosecutors during his trial did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct entitling him to a new trial.

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT