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.














Never heard of remand to another state. How often does that happen?
I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.