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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit