Andy A. Shinnock v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 55
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In August 2015 Shinnock lived with Paul Moore and Moore’s two dogs in Muncie.
- Moore found the female dog unresponsive to calls, dog feces and food scattered, and Shinnock in boxer shorts with an erection; the female dog ran out from Shinnock’s bedroom and hid under the couch.
- Moore confronted Shinnock, who admitted attempting to have sex with Moore’s dog; Shinnock repeated a confession to the investigating officer.
- State charged Shinnock with bestiality (penetration of an animal by a human male sex organ). Trial was a bench trial; defense repeatedly objected that corpus delicti was not established before admitting nonjudicial confessions.
- Trial court overruled corpus delicti objections, admitted the confessions, and found Shinnock guilty but mentally ill; Shinnock appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by admitting Shinnock’s nonjudicial confessions when the State failed to prove corpus delicti | The State contended Moore’s observations and surrounding evidence supported an inference the crime occurred, so confessions were admissible. | Shinnock argued no independent evidence showed penetration or injury to the dog; conviction rested solely on confessions, violating the corpus delicti rule. | Reversed: the court held the independent evidence did not establish the corpus delicti, so admitting the confessions was error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicholson v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1096 (Ind. 2012) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Green v. State, 304 N.E.2d 845 (Ind. Ct. App. 1973) (conviction cannot rest solely on nonjudicial confession)
- Walker v. State, 233 N.E.2d 483 (Ind. 1968) (definition of corpus delicti: proof that the specific crime was committed by someone)
- Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445 (Ind. 1999) (confession requires independent evidence of commission)
- Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. 2003) (independent evidence need only permit an inference that the crime occurred)
- Hurt v. State, 570 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. 1991) (purpose of corpus delicti rule to prevent convictions for crimes that never occurred)
- McManus v. State, 541 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. 1989) (order of evidence not critical; corpus delicti may be proven after confession)
- Parker v. State, 88 N.E.2d 556 (Ind. 1949) (corpus delicti not established where only disappearance and bones were shown aside from confession)