ILNews

Justices vacate life sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court vacated a convicted murderer's sentence of life in prison without parole because the trial court judge didn't have the authority to impose the sentence after the jury failed to reach a unanimous sentencing recommendation.

Kyle Kiplinger appealed his sentence of life in prison without parole following his convictions of murder and felony murder for the rape and death of Bobbi Jo Braunecker. Kiplinger and Darrick O'Brien gave her a ride home following a party and beat her and knocked her unconscious so O'Brien could have sex with her. They killed her and left her body in a river.

The state sought life without parole based on the qualifying aggravating circumstance that Kiplinger intentionally killed Braunecker while committing or attempting to commit rape. The jury found him guilty, but was unable to reach a unanimous decision on a sentence recommendation. The jury never returned a special verdict form finding the state proved the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, only that the state proved that the charged aggravating circumstance outweighed any mitigating circumstances. The judge then sentenced him to life without parole.

In Kyle Kiplinger v. State of Indiana, No. 62S00-0809-CR-486, Kiplinger argued the jury never found the charged aggravating circumstance had been proven by a reasonable doubt. The state claimed that the jury determined that the state had proved the charged aggravating circumstance outweighed the mitigating circumstances on a "special verdict form," and that this sufficiently demonstrated that the jury had found an aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury in Kiplinger's trial wasn't able to reach a unanimous decision on the life sentence and its guilt phase verdicts don't necessary establish that the aggravating circumstance was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, wrote Justice Frank Sullivan.

"The jury found that the State had proved the charged aggravating circumstance out-weighed the mitigating circumstances. We acknowledge that it would be permissible to infer that the jury unanimously found the existence of the charged aggravating circumstance from this finding," he wrote. "We are unable, however, to infer that the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that the State had proved the aggravating circumstance."

When a jury is unable to reach a unanimous decision as to the existence of an aggravating circumstance and the Sixth Amendment prohibits the trial judge from imposing a sentence of life without possibility of parole under Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-9(f), a new penalty phase trial is required.

The justices remanded for re-sentencing. If the state dismisses its request for the life sentence, then Kiplinger should be re-sentenced to a term of years. If not, then the trial court shall convene a new penalty phase jury.

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

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT