Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court overturned a French Lick woman’s murder conviction on Wednesday, clearing the way for a new trial.
The state’s high court unanimously ruled that jury instructions issued by Orange Circuit Court Judge Steven L. Owen may have misled the jury to convict Sabrina Dunn of the murder of her ex-husband William “Bill” Dunn.
Robert Bottorff II, attorney for Sabrina Dunn, said the court’s decision made for a good day for him and his client. “I was ecstatic,” Bottorff said. “It’s a pretty rare thing to have the Supreme Court overturn a murder conviction.”
Orange County Prosecutor Holly Hudelson could not immediately be reached for comment on the future of the case.
In October 2020, Sabrina shot Bill several times when he entered her home, a separate guesthouse on the couple’s property, after she told him to leave her alone. Police recovered two knives, a lockpicking kit and suspected methamphetamines. Under his body, police found a third knife.
Sabrina told police that Bill was carrying a “great big knife” during the encounter and earlier in the day had threatened to kill her and her boyfriend.
The shooting ended years of volatility between the couple. Both made over a hundred calls to 911 over the previous 18 months, and Sabrina had obtained few protective orders against Bill.
Throughout the trial, the defense argued that Sabrina justifiably used deadly force in defense of her dwelling. The prosecution argued that Sabrina had lain in wait and killed Bill according to a plan, rather than out of reasonable necessity.
The state’s high court ruled that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that the prosecution had the “burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense and/or in defense of her dwelling or in land adjoining her dwelling.”
The court found the use of the term “and/or” confusing for the jury, noting that jurors needed to understand that Sabrina’s use of deadly force was justified if she reasonably believed that it was necessary to defend herself or her dwelling.
“The inclusion of ‘and’ sowed ambiguity, obscuring the fact that either of the two justifications would negate (Sabrina) Dunn’s guilt,” the ruling says, adding that “there is a real chance the jury was misled into convicting her.”
The high court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
The case is Sabrina L. Dunn v. State of Indiana, 24S-CR-123.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.