ILNews

Trial court erred in disregarding psychiatrists’ unanimous finding

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman who brutally attacked her boyfriend’s minor child had her conviction overturned by the Indiana Court of Appeals on the grounds that the trial court did not have enough evidence to contradict the psychiatrists’ reports and find her guilty but mentally ill.

Tammy Lee Kelley was arrested and charged after an attack that left D.S., the minor child, with multiple stab wounds, including one that narrowly missed her kidney and another on her chest that partially collapsed one of her lungs.

Subsequently, Kelley was evaluated by two psychiatrists who both documented her mental disease and concluded she was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct at the time of the offense.

During a bench trial, no testimony was taken, the parties stipulated to the police reports and the two psychiatrists’ reports were offered along with some of D.S.’s medical records.

The trial court found Kelley guilty but mentally ill on the following: one count of criminal confinement as a Class C felony, battery of a person under fourteen resulting in bodily injury as a Class D felony, and resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor; and two counts of battery of a law enforcement officer resulting in bodily injury as Class D felonies.

On appeal, Kelley argued that the trial court could not find her guilty but mentally ill when the medical evaluations were unanimous that she was insane at the time of the incident and when there was no contradictory lay testimony.  

The state cited Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. 2004) as giving the judge in this case the freedom to reject the expert testimony.

The COA reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to enter a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity.

“While it appears that there was limited foundation for the psychiatrists’ determinations, there is even less on which the trial court could have decided to disregard those determinations,” Judge Margret Robb wrote for the court in Tammy Lee Kelley v. State of Indiana, 09A04-1303-CR-98.

“In short, there was no lay witness testimony and little demeanor evidence from which the court could have deduced, contrary to the two psychiatrists, that Kelley was sane at the time of the incident.”



 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT