ILNews

Indiana Supreme Court upholds death sentence

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has declined to grant a twice-convicted death row inmate’s request for a new trial, upholding his convictions and penalty for murders that go back more than a decade.

Justices issued a unanimous decision today in Wayne D. Kubsch v. State of Indiana, No. 71S00-0708-PD-335, affirming a post-conviction relief denial from St. Joseph Superior Judge Jane Woodward Miller.

Charged in 1998 with murdering his wife, her ex-husband, and her 11-year-old son, Kubsch was first convicted and sentenced to death in 2000, but that was reversed on appeal. A second trial resulting in his conviction and death sentence came in 2005, and the Supreme Court upheld that on direct appeal in 2007.

Kubsch sought a third trial on claims that the judge shouldn’t have allowed hearsay testimony – about him bragging while in the in the county jail about killing a child, and that an insurance official’s testimony that the company didn’t pay out benefits for his wife’s death – was improper.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Dec. 22, 2009.

Justice Robert D. Rucker wrote the unanimous opinion, which not only delved into the testimony issues but also addressed other matters such as ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and other evidentiary errors at trial. Nine of the issues were waived because they were known and available at the time of Kubsch’s direct appeal, Justice Rucker wrote, and another three issues are barred because of the doctrine of res judicata.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT