Andy A. Shinnock v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. LEXIS 500
| Ind. | 2017Background
- In August 2015 roommates Paul Moore and Andy Shinnock lived with Moore’s two dogs; one morning Moore found the apartment unusually messy and Baby Girl (the female pit bull) absent from her normal greeting spot.
- Moore found Baby Girl confined in Shinnock’s bedroom; Shinnock was in his boxers with an erection and Baby Girl ran to hide when the door opened.
- Moore asked and Shinnock admitted to Moore and later to police that he had sexual contact with the dog.
- Shinnock was charged with bestiality (penetration by a human male sex organ) and convicted (found guilty but mentally ill) after a bench trial; the trial court admitted his out‑of‑court statements over his objection.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the State failed to independently prove the penetration element and thus the confessions were inadmissible; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the corpus delicti rule barred admission of Shinnock’s nonjudicial confessions | State: corpus delicti for admissibility requires only independent evidence permitting a reasonable inference that the charged crime occurred, not proof of every element or a prima facie case | Shinnock: no independent evidence of the penetration element of bestiality, so confessions cannot be admitted under corpus delicti rule | Court: affirmed admission — independent circumstantial evidence (dog confined with defendant, defendant’s state, apartment condition, defendant’s admissions) supplied an inference that bestiality occurred, satisfying the lower corpus delicti threshold for admitting confessions |
Key Cases Cited
- Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. 2003) (corpus delicti for confession admissibility may be established by circumstantial evidence and need only permit a reasonable inference)
- McManus v. State, 541 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. 1989) (totality of independent evidence at trial can establish corpus delicti)
- Duling v. State, 354 N.E.2d 286 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976) (distinguishes lower admissibility threshold from proof required to sustain conviction)
- Jones v. State, 252 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. 1969) (no requirement to make out a prima facie case on each element before admitting a confession)
- Hurt v. State, 570 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. 1991) (purpose of corpus delicti rule is to prevent conviction from a confession of a crime that never occurred)
- Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445 (Ind. 1999) (confession admission requires some independent proof of commission of the charged crime)