ILNews

High court affirms trial court in murder case

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A life-without-parole sentence is appropriate for the Elkhart County teen who pleaded guilty to conspiring to murder his girlfriend's mom, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today.

The unanimous decision in Spenser A. Krempetz v. State of Indiana, No. 20S00-0607-CR-270, came down today and affirmed the ruling by Elkhart Circuit Judge Terry Shewmaker.

In August 2005, 18-year old Krempetz conspired with his 17-year-old girlfriend Hannah Stone and a mutual friend to "get rid of" Stone's mom because Stone was annoyed that her mother, Barbara Jo Keim, didn't approve of her daughter's relationship with Krempetz. The trio overpowered Keim, held a gun to her, and duct taped her before taking her to an ATM to withdraw money. Krempetz later drove to a cornfield in an adjacent county and shot Keim in the back of the head. All accepted plea agreements and were sentenced.

On direct appeal, the justices agreed that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Krempetz intentionally killed Keim while attempting to commit a robbery, that the killing was committed while lying in wait, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in balancing aggravators and mitigators.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT