Tammy Lou Kelley v. State of Indiana - 11/21/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  November 21, 2013 
12:30 PM  EST

09A04-1303-CR-98 12:30 p.m. Michigan City High School. The State charged Tammy Lou Kelley with attempted murder, criminal confinement, battery resulting in bodily injury, two counts of battery on law enforcement officers, and resisting law enforcement, all stemming from an incident in which she stabbed a child left in her care and was uncooperative and combative with officers who arrived to assist.  Kelley requested a psychiatric, competency, and mental status evaluation.  Two court-appointed doctors filed reports finding Kelley competent for purposes of trial but unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct at the time of the offense.  At the bench trial, the parties stipulated to the police reports, medical reports, and psychiatric evaluations.  No live testimony was taken.  At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found Kelley not guilty of attempted murder, and guilty but mentally ill with respect to the remaining counts.  Kelley appeals her convictions, contending first that the trial court erred in finding her guilty but mentally ill when the uncontradicted evidence was that she was insane at the time of the incident.  She also contends there was insufficient evidence to support her convictions, and that convictions of both battery and confinement of the child victim constitute double jeopardy.  Finally, she contends the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without articulating an adequate basis for doing so.

Back to Events
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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT