Bunch v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 115
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Bunch was convicted in 1996 of felony murder arising from a 1995 mobile-home fire that killed her three-year-old son Anthony.
- Direct appeal left intact a separate arson conviction; double jeopardy concerns led to vacatur of the arson conviction and related sentence.
- Bunch sought post-conviction relief in 2006; petition was denied in 2010 after a PCR hearing.
- She alleged newly-discovered evidence (fire victim toxicology and fire-investigation techniques) and Brady violations, plus ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on newly-discovered toxicology evidence and a Brady violation; remaining issues were not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether victim toxicology is newly discovered evidence | Bunch asserts McAllister’s toxicology analysis is newly discovered | State contends evidence is packaging of prior theory | Yes; constitutes newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial |
| Whether ATF report Brady violation occurred | Bunch contends undisclosed ATF data favored defense | State argues no suppression; data not favorable | Yes; Brady violation; new trial warranted |
| Whether fire-investigation techniques evidence is newly discovered | Bunch claims techniques (flashover concept) were newly recognized | State argues no new evidence; trial record suffices | Not reached in majority; focus on toxicology and Brady findings |
| Whether ineffective assistance of trial counsel entitles relief | Bunch claims counsel failed to present exculpatory evidence | State argues performance was reasonable; no prejudice shown | Not reached in majority; relief granted on two grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. State, 840 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. 2006) (newly discovered evidence standard applied (nine-factor test))
- Carter v. State, 738 N.E.2d 665 (Ind. 2000) (nine-factor framework for newly discovered evidence (implied))
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (material Brady evidence; reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (duty to learn favorable evidence; suppression analysis)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel (deficient performance, prejudice))