ILNews

Woman’s 35-year sentence upheld following death of stepson

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Lake Superior judge did not abuse her discretion in sentencing a woman to 35 years for neglect of a dependent after the woman’s stepson died following years of abuse.

Kimberly Kubina faced numerous charges after her stepson Christian Choate died in 2009. The boy was repeatedly abused and beaten by his father, which Kubina did not stop or report. The boy was kept locked up and only let out of the room or a dog cage to eat, use the restroom or exercise. After his death, she helped dispose of the boy’s body.

Kubina pleaded guilty to one count of Class A felony neglect of a dependent and received 35 years incarceration. In Kimberly Kubina v. State of Indiana, 45A03-1303-CR-100, she argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it found aggravating and mitigating circumstances during sentencing.

She believed the trial court improperly took into account her position of trust with the boy when determining aggravating factors. The statute she was convicted under requires that Kubina have had “care of a dependent.”

“Kubina had more than mere care of Christian; she was a stepparent involved in Christian’s upbringing and living in the same home with him, and directly assisted (father Riley) Choate in Christian’s abuse on numerous occasions,” Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote. “The trial court noted several of these facts, as well as the nature of Christian’s ‘long, lingering, torturous death.’ We thus find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s finding that Kubina was in a position of trust with Christian.”

The judges also found no abuse of discretion when the trial judge only took into account as a mitigating factor that Kubina lacked a criminal history.

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