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
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. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT