State Responds To Appeal By Courtney Kincaid
By Liz Shepherd
InkFreeNews
COLUMBIA CITY — The State of Indiana has filed a brief with the Indiana Court of Appeals in response to Courtney Kincaid’s appellant’s brief.
Kincaid, 30, is appealing her 30-year prison sentence after she was convicted on two Level 1 felony charges for battering an 11-month-old child she had been babysitting. The infant later died.
On April 12, 2018, Kincaid was babysitting Emma Grace Leeman when Emma Grace sustained severe injuries to her skull. Emma Grace died as a result of her injuries on April 13, 2018. Emma Grace’s parents are Nick and Sherry Leeman, Pierceton.
A board-certified forensic pathologist conducted an autopsy on Emma Grace and reported the cause of death as “blunt force traumatic injuries to the head,” ruling the death a homicide. A neurosurgeon who performed a craniectomy on Emma Grace said her injuries were consistent with ones seen in motor vehicle crashes.
Prior to her arrest, Kincaid gave officers several different stories on what happened to Emma Grace. A polygraph examination in August 2018 showed “deception indicated” when Kincaid was asked if she injured Emma and if she knew how she was hurt.
During a five-day jury trial in July 2020, Kincaid was found guilty of aggravated battery and neglect of a dependent resulting in death, both level 1 felonies.
In August 2020, Whitley County Circuit Court Judge Matthew Rentschler sentenced Kincaid to 30 years in the Indiana Department of Corrections for each charge. Both counts are being served concurrently, or at the same time.
Kincaid is currently serving her prison sentence at Rockville Correctional Facility, with an estimated release date of Jan. 28, 2043.
In her appeal, Kincaid requested the court reverse the convictions and have a new jury trial; alternatively, Kincaid requested her sentence be reduced to either 20 years in prison or changed to allow for a substantial portion of time to be served on home detention.
Indiana Deputy Attorney General Sierra Murray has filed the appellee’s brief on behalf of the state.
The 25-page brief, filed March 24, lists two main arguments as to why the state should uphold Kincaid’s convictions and sentence.
- Did the trial court error by excluding part of Professor Hirsch’s testimony?
In her appeal, Kincaid’s counsel argued the court was in error for not allowing Kincaid the opportunity to present further testimony from Professor Alan Hirsch, an expert in interrogations and false confessions.
During the jury trial, Hirsch was asked about the Reid Technique, a process where investigators tell alleged suspects the results of the investigation clearly indicate they did commit the crime in question. Hirsch said the technique works on guilty people but can also break down innocent people.
The state’s brief argues Kincaid admittedly failed to preserve her claim of error. This is discussed in Kincaid’s brief on how she failed to object to the court’s decision to exclude some of Hirsch’s testimony.
Murray also argues if Hirsch were allowed to testify on the specific interrogations used on Kincaid, the jury would have viewed the professor’s testimony as an opinion that the technique’s use created a false confession. This is an inference forbidden by Indiana Rule of Evidence 704(b), which says witnesses may not testify to opinions concerning intent, guilt or innocence in a criminal case; or whether a witness has testified truthfully.
The state says the trial court’s ruling didn’t prevent Kincaid from fully presenting her defense of falsely confessing. Murray states Hirsch was allowed to testify at length about the Reid technique and that this was supported by Kincaid’s testimony of falsely confessing.
The brief states the jury had all the information it needed to determine if the Reid technique was used and if Kincaid falsely confessed due to the technique.
“The trial court only excluded the portion of Professor Hirsch’s testimony that would infringe on the jury’s job of determining whether Kincaid’s confession was true or false,” read the brief. “It was not error, much less fundamental error, to limit Professor Hirsch’s testimony to information that would aid the jury in its decision without infringing on the jury’s determinations.”
- Was the sentence appropriate?
The state argues Kincaid’s sentence is not inappropriate as the advisory sentence for Kincaid’s crimes is 60 years. The sentencing range for a Level 1 felony is between 20 and 40 years, with 30 years being the advisory sentence. Kincaid received concurrent 30-year sentences.
Murray elaborates on Kincaid’s sentence not needing revision due to the offenses’ nature.
“Kincaid caused the painful death of an 11-month-old baby entrusted to her care,” read the brief. “She intentionally physically abused Emma Grace, causing a large skull fracture, a brain bleed, and retinal and perineural hemorrhages. Then Kincaid waited hours before seeking medical attention, leaving Emma Grace to suffer. After Emma Grace died, Kincaid did not admit to her wrongdoing, but repeatedly lied to the police and concocted story after story in an attempt to explain the baby’s injuries and avoid the consequences of her actions.”
The state also says Kincaid’s character is insufficient in proving that a less-than-advisory sentence is inappropriate.
“Kincaid revealed her character when she abused a baby, delayed seeking medical attention, and lied about her actions for nine months,” read the brief.
Murray further argued Kincaid’s actions spoke more about her character than descriptions given by friends and family.
“A kind, caring, compassionate, trustworthy, sweet, calm, loving, nurturing, and patient person does not abuse an 11-month-old baby, allow the baby to suffer by failing to seek medical attention, and then lie about her actions,” read the brief.