Case Title: Alexa Whedon v. State of Indiana

Citation: 

Docket Number: 49S02-0905-PC-218

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2009-05-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
John Pinnow 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gregory F. Zoeller 
Greenwood, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ian McLean 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court 
_________________________________ 
 
No. 49S02-0905-PC-218 
 
ALEXA WHEDON, 
 
Appellant (Petitioner below), 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA, 
 
Appellee (Respondent below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49G04-9903-CF-035467 
The Honorable Patricia J. Gifford, Judge 
The Honorable Steven J. Rubick, Magistrate 
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0808-PC-677 
_________________________________ 
 
May 8, 2009 
 
Per curiam. 
 
Alexa Whedon was convicted of murder in a bench trial during which several women 
who were in jail with Whedon testified as to incriminating statements that they said Whedon had 
made to them.  We affirmed Whedon’s conviction on direct appeal.  Whedon v. State, 765 
N.E.2d 1276 (Ind. 2002).  Whedon then initiated this proceeding, contending, inter alia, that 
newly discovered evidence entitled her to post-conviction relief, to wit, that the testimony of two 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
May 08 2009, 12:06 pm
 
2 
of the jailhouse witnesses had not been truthful.  The post-conviction court denied relief because 
the claim did not meet the requirements for newly discovered evidence enunciated in Fox v. 
State, 568 N.E.2d 1006, 1007 (Ind. 1991), and other cases.  The Court of Appeals affirmed.  
Whedon v. State, 900 N.E.2d 498, 505 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).  We grant transfer and summarily 
affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.  Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). 
 
During the post-conviction hearing, Whedon sought to present the testimony of Rob 
Warden, Executive Director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at the Northwestern 
University School of Law, as an expert on “incentivized witness or snitch testimony.”  The 
testimony to which Warden was consulted was the same jailhouse witness testimony referred to 
in the preceding paragraph.  The post-conviction court held Warden’s testimony to be 
inadmissible and the Court of Appeals affirmed this determination.  Because the claim that the 
testimony of the two jailhouse witnesses had not been truthful did not constitute “newly 
discovered evidence,” it was not available for collateral review.  Warden’s testimony was 
properly excluded on those grounds and it was therefore not necessary to address the issue of its 
general admissibility.