Court Opinion

ID: 9722373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:27:55.360081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:34.647116
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I cannot agree that there is a serious evidentiary dispute about whether Michael R. Lynch killed his father knowingly.
The majority opinion correctly states the legal standard Indiana appellate courts have recently used to determine whether involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense to the offense of knowing murder, with which Lynch is charged. In my view, this case turns on how seriously we should treat Lynch's testimony that when he aimed a 410 shotgun directly at the center of his father's body and pulled the trigger, he intended only a "rude touching." To reverse Lynch's conviction, I think one must be willing to say that such a shooter is unaware of the high probability of a fatality when he fires a shot into somebody's abdomen at point blank range with that kind of a weapon.
*540The information against Lynch charged the crime in a go-for-broke way: either Michael Lynch was guilty of murder or he was not guilty. By holding that the law requires giving a lesser included offense instruction under these circumstances, we do not necessarily do any favors for those on trial for life or liberty. This Court's analysis on lesser included offenses is intended in part to discourage compromise verdicts. Today's decision cuts in the other direction.
GIVAN, J., joins in this dissent.