ILNews

Court upholds convictions, sentence of a man who shot Indy officer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant’s convictions and sentence related to the shooting of an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer in the summer of 2008.

Brian K. Reese appealed his convictions of Class A felony attempted murder, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class C felony carrying a handgun, which was elevated due to a prior offense. He also challenged his 59-year sentence. Police went to Reese’s girlfriend’s home to speak to him about a murder investigation. He fled from police and shot Officer Jason Fishburn in the head and chest as he pursued Reese.   

Reese raised four issues on appeal – that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of uncharged bad acts in violation of Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b); the trial court abused its discretion in instructing the jury; whether there is sufficient evidence to support his attempted murder conviction; and whether he was properly sentenced.

Reese was granted a motion in limine to exclude any direct reference to his status as a homicide suspect at the time the officers came to his girlfriend’s home. He testified at trial that the police came to his home because they had a warrant out for him on a theft charge, not because he was a murder suspect. He also testified that he believed the police were chasing him because he was running around with a gun in his hand. After this testimony, the state was allowed to elicit testimony from his girlfriend that Reese knew he was a murder suspect.

“Accordingly, Reese’s testimony ignored the gravity of his legal peril and suggested that he faced only a relatively minor charge that would not motivate him to employ violence to escape,” wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey in Brian Reese v. State of Indiana, No. 64A03-1001-CR-18. “The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Reese offered misleading testimony that ‘opened the door’ to testimony that Reese was aware of his status as a murder suspect.”

The judges did believe Final Instruction 26, which said, “The intent to kill may be inferred from the nature of the attack and the circumstances surrounding the crime. The intent to kill may be inferred from the deliberate use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or serious bodily injury,” could have been better written. But they found the use of “attack” to be at most a harmless error in light of Reese’s testimony that he deliberately fired multiple shots, two of which hit Fishburn.

There was also sufficient evidence to support his attempted murder conviction and his sentence. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion by failing to identify undue financial hardship to Reese’s children as a significant mitigating factor because he, at best, sporadically provided temporary housing and entertainment for his kids, wrote the judge. There is also nothing in the nature of the offenses or the character of Reese that persuaded the appellate court that the maximum sentence given to Reese is inappropriate.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Law,
    WAKE UP AMERICA All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. IT'S TIME FOR ALL AMERICANS TO STAND AND SPEAK UP MUST READ ARTICLES The Infallible Prosecutor: Google it 10,000 innocent people convicted each year Scalia's death row lunacy: Google it Most registered sex offenders are innocent www.wikipedia.org Type censorship in the U.S. in the search box IF YOU DON'T KNOW YOUR RIGHTS YOU DON'T HAVE ANY Jury nullification: A fundamental right! Indiana Constitution: Article1: Section 19: In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. The 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution of the United States means the same thing. An unjust law is not a law at all and any person charged with violating an unjust law has not violated any law and should be found not guilty simply because the law is unjust! WE MUST PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONS

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT