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

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT