ILNews

Judges reduce rapist’s sentence to 165 years

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday slashed 105 years from a convicted rapist’s sentence, concluding the original 270-year sentence was far outside the norm for a single episode of conduct against a single victim.

Shawn Corbally broke into a Greenwood woman’s apartment in July 2012 and forced M.R. to engage in numerous sexual acts for two hours while making threats to harm her or her children, who were in the apartment. Her 1-year-old child was asleep in the bed with her when Corbally began assaulting the woman. She was able to identify Corbally because she saw his tattoo on his left arm depicting bricks. She also saw he was wearing cargo shorts and was able to see his face when he led her outside.

Police recovered his and M.R.’s DNA on the camouflage shorts they found in Corbally’s duffle bag. He was convicted of Class A felony burglary, Class A felony rape, four counts of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, and two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement. He was sentenced to 270 years.

Corbally appealed in Shawn Lawrence Corbally v. State of Indiana, 41A04-1304-CR-175, on two grounds: that the trial court improperly allowed Greenwood Police Department investigator Patti Cummings to relate the contents of her interview with the victim, and that his sentence is inappropriate.

Cummings testified as to what M.R. had told her about the attack during an interview conducted the day after it occurred. Corbally’s attorney objected, arguing the state was asking Cummings to relate hearsay, but withdrew the objection after she told the court she could not stipulate to M.R.’s credibility.

The trial court erred in telling Corbally’s attorney that any challenge to M.R.’s credibility allowed the state to introduce prior consistent statements by her, the Court of Appeals held. The judges were skeptical of the state’s argument that Cummings’ testimony should be allowed because it was in some way related to the course of investigation work that led to Corbally’s arrest.

“Cummings almost completely rehashed the grisly details of the crimes as already testified to by M.R. Such evidence was entirely irrelevant to the course of the investigation, and it was not admissible as ‘course-of-investigation’ evidence. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote.

But, this admission was a harmless error, the judges ruled, as there is overwhelming independent evidence of Corbally’s guilt.

Barnes and Judge Elaine Brown chose to reduce Corbally’s sentence after looking at other cases involving similar circumstances. Barnes noted that the longest affirmed sentence imposed for a single episode of sexual violence against one victim was 151 years since the adoption of the “inappropriate” standard for reviewing sentences. The majority decided to reduce his sentence to an aggregate of 165 years after concluding his 270-year sentence is an “outlier” in need of revision.

Judge Margret Robb dissented without opinion regarding the sentencing issue.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Really?
    Horrible crime . . . but, really? Is there a realistic difference between 270 years and 105 years here that requires the appellate court's time and effort? Assuming the evildoer is not Methuzulla (sp), I assume a 105 year sentence will do to keep him in prison for life . . . but so would a 270 year sentence. So why bother?

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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT