Andy A. Shinnock v. State of Indiana

FILED
Feb 09 2017, 8:18 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jack Quirk Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Muncie, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Andy A. Shinnock, February 9, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A05-1606-CR-1258
v. Appeal from the Delaware Circuit
Court.
The Honorable Kimberly S.
State of Indiana, Dowling, Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 18C02-1508-F6-117
Sharpnack, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A05-1606-CR-1258 | February 9, 2017 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
1
[1] Andy A. Shinnock appeals his conviction of bestiality, a Level 6 felony. We
reverse and remand.
Issue
[2] Shinnock’s sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by admitting his
confession because the State’s evidence did not establish the corpus delicti of
the crime.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In August 2015, Shinnock resided with Paul Moore and Moore’s two dogs in
Muncie. One morning when Moore returned home from work, he called the
dogs, but they did not respond. Moore called the dogs a second time, and only
the male dog responded. Moore noticed dog feces on the floor and dog food
scattered about. He then called for the female dog by name. When she still did
not respond, Moore opened the door of Shinnock’s bedroom. The female dog
ran out of the bedroom and went under the couch. Moore noticed that
Shinnock was wearing boxer shorts and a t-shirt and had an erection. Moore
confronted Shinnock who admitted to attempting to have sex with Moore’s
dog. Moore then called the police. When the investigating officer arrived and
questioned Shinnock, Shinnock admitted to having sex with the dog.
1
Ind. Code § 35-46-3-14 (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A05-1606-CR-1258 | February 9, 2017 Page 2 of 6
[4] Based upon this incident, the State charged Shinnock with bestiality. A bench
trial was held, at which defense counsel objected several times. During
Moore’s testimony, defense counsel objected to the admission of Shinnock’s
statement to Moore based upon the lack of corpus delicti. The court overruled
the objection. Defense counsel then asked for a continuing objection due to the
lack of corpus delicti. Although the court overruled the objection, it granted
defense counsel’s request for the record to show a continuing objection.
Defense counsel also objected on the basis of lack of corpus delicti to Exhibits
7, 8 and 9, which are recordings of Shinnock’s confession to Moore, Moore’s
911 call, and Shinnock’s confession to the investigating officer, respectively.
These objections were also overruled by the court. Defense counsel again
lodged a corpus delicti objection to the testimony of the investigating officer
concerning Shinnock’s statement to him, and, as before, the court overruled the
objection. The trial court found Shinnock guilty but mentally ill. He now
appeals this conviction.
Discussion and Decision
[5] The trial court is afforded wide discretion in ruling on the admissibility of
evidence. Nicholson v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1096, 1099 (Ind. 2012). On appeal,
evidentiary decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion and are reversed only
when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances. Id.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A05-1606-CR-1258 | February 9, 2017 Page 3 of 6
[6] In Indiana, a person may not be convicted of a crime based solely on a
nonjudicial confession of guilt. Green v. State, 159 Ind. App. 68, 304 N.E.2d
845, 848 (1973). Rather, independent proof of the corpus delicti is required
before the defendant may be convicted upon a nonjudicial confession. Id.Proof of the corpus delicti means “proof that the specific crime charged has
actually been committed by someone.” Walker v. State, 249 Ind. 551, 233
N.E.2d 483, 488 (1968). Thus, admission of a confession requires some
independent evidence of commission of the crime charged. Workman v. State,
716 N.E.2d 445, 447 (Ind. 1999). The independent evidence need not prove
that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt but merely provide an
inference that the crime charged was committed. Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d
1071, 1086 (Ind. 2003). The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to prevent the
admission of a confession to a crime which never occurred. Hurt v. State, 570
N.E.2d 16, 19 (Ind. 1991). Further, we note that the order of the evidence is
not critical; the admission of independent evidence proving the corpus delicti
may follow the admission of a confession, provided the totality of the
independent evidence establishes the corpus delicti. McManus v. State, 541
N.E.2d 538, 539-40 (Ind. 1989).
[7] Here, Shinnock was charged with bestiality, specifically that he “knowingly or
intentionally perform[ed] an act involving penetration of an animal[’]s sex
organ by the human male sex organ.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 14; see also
Ind. Code § 35-46-3-14(4). The only evidence presented at trial besides
Shinnock’s confessions to his roommate Moore and the investigating officer
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A05-1606-CR-1258 | February 9, 2017 Page 4 of 6
was Moore’s testimony that: (1) Moore’s two dogs did not respond as usual
when called; (2) when Moore called the dogs a second time, only the male dog
responded; (3) there was dog feces and dog food on the floor, which had not
happened before; (4) when Moore called for the female dog by name, she did
not respond; (5) when Moore opened Shinnock’s door, the female dog ran out
of the room and went under the couch, which was unusual; (6) Shinnock was
wearing a t-shirt and boxer shorts and had an erection. In addition, Shinnock’s
parole supervisor testified that Shinnock is “low functioning,” has “anger
issues,” and is “very sexually preoccupied.” Tr. p. 53.
[8] The corpus delicti here would at least be a dog whose sex organ had been
penetrated by the sex organ of a human male. The only evidence of that crime
in this case, other than Shinnock’s confessions, is as described above. That
evidence provides no showing that the dog’s sex organ had been penetrated by
anything or that the defendant’s sex organ had penetrated anything. Further,
there was neither evidence of physical injury to the dog’s sex organ nor any
evidence of the condition of the dog’s sex organ or the defendant’s sex organ,
other than it was erect. In short, there was no proof of the commission of the
crime of bestiality by the defendant other than his confessions to Moore and the
investigating officer. See, e.g., Parker v. State, 228 Ind. 1, 88 N.E.2d 556 (1949)
(holding corpus delicti not established where only evidence that victim had
been murdered, besides defendant’s confession, was victim had disappeared and
unidentified bones and skull were found). Therefore, admitting the confessions
was error.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A05-1606-CR-1258 | February 9, 2017 Page 5 of 6
Conclusion
[9] For the reasons stated, we conclude the trial court erred in admitting
Shinnock’s confessions at trial because the corpus delicti of the crime charged
was not established. We reverse and remand to the trial court.
[10] Reversed and remanded.
Pyle, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A05-1606-CR-1258 | February 9, 2017 Page 6 of 6