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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT