Split COA orders new trial in deadly county fair brawl after prosecutorial misconduct

(IL file photo)

A man convicted of manslaughter after a brawl at a county fair will get a new trial, although one appellate judge would uphold his conviction and sentence.

In July 2021, Michael Steele and Zachariah David Konkle were working at the Jackson County Fair in Brownstown.

A certain family attended the fair, and when one of the daughters, who has “multiple mental and behavioral issues,” threw a tantrum after losing the goldfish game, a worker made fun of her. The mother went to look for a supervisor to make a complaint about the worker, and Konkle told her he would take care of it.

Later that night, Konkle told some co-workers that someone had been messing with a mentally handicapped child and that if he found the person, he would hurt them. The workers told Konkle to let management handle it.

Konkle initially believed Robert Clark was the worker who made fun of the little girl, so he attacked him. But Clark was the wrong person.

Konkle then told Steele that the second person was going to get it “twice as worse.” Konkle didn’t know Steele had several heart problems, including significantly blocked coronary arteries and an enlarged heart.

Steele “got tired of hearing it from” Konkle and said, “Let’s go.” He then threw a punch, and the men began to fight on the ground.

Konkle was on top of Steele when he heard him making gurgling sounds. Another worker started CPR, and Konkle joined in.

Konkle told those who were there to tell law enforcement that Steele had fallen in the shower. Law enforcement arrived and took over CPR until EMS arrived.

Konkle was interviewed on the scene and again at the police department. He stated that he was mad at Steele for making fun of a special needs girl because he has a special needs child.

Steele was taken to Indiana University Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis, where he died.

Dr. Bruce Wainer, a forensic pathologist at the Marion County Coroner’s Office, concluded Steele’s cause of death was mechanical asphyxiation complicating compression of the carotid artery through a chokehold.

The state subsequently charged Konkle with murder. His jury trial was held in February 2023, and the main question was whether Konkle knowingly killed Steele.

Wainer was no longer employed at the Marion County Coroner’s Office, so Dr. Christopher Poulos testified instead. He stated that he largely agreed with Wainer, but that the asphyxia could have been from a chokehold or compression of Steele’s chest. He noted there were no injuries to Steele’s neck either externally or internally.

Poulos also stated that Steele was in poor health, and his heart showed signs of previous heart attacks, with one being recent. He said it was possible Steele had a heart attack during the fight.

He concluded in his testimony that Steele did not die from natural causes but rather at the hands of another, and that if the struggle caused a heart attack, it would still be homicide.

But another forensic pathologist, Dr. George Nichols II, testified for the defense that Steele did die from natural causes due to his poor health and a heart attack. He stated that Steele had no injuries that would have prevented him from walking away had his heart not ceased activity.

The jury found Konkle guilty of Level 2 felony voluntary manslaughter, and Konkle admitted to being a habitual offender. The Jackson Circuit Court sentenced him to a total of 34 years.

At issue on appeal was the prosecutor’s statement in closing argument that the Indiana Supreme Court, under the eggshell-victim doctrine, has allowed people to be convicted even if they did not intend the harm the victim sustained. Konkle claimed that doctrine does not apply to murder and voluntary manslaughter cases and that, therefore, it was a misstatement of the law.

The appellate court agreed that the state committed prosecutorial misconduct, thus making a fair trial impossible and constituting fundamental error.

“During closing, the State acknowledged it had to prove that Konkle acted knowingly to obtain a guilty verdict for murder. But then things started to go off the rails,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote. “First, the State told the jury that because Konkle seriously injured Steele, he knowingly killed him. That, however, is not the law.

“… To make matters worse, the State then argued that the inapplicable eggshell-victim doctrine applied, telling the jury that because Steele had preexisting heart problems, Konkle was guilty of a knowing killing ‘even if he didn’t intend to bring bodily harm,’” Vaidik continued. “The State tried to bolster this argument by emphasizing that the Indiana Supreme Court had established this rule a decade earlier. But as already explained, that is simply not the case.

“… Given the conflicting evidence, it is entirely possible that the jury concluded that Steele wouldn’t have died but for his preexisting heart problems,” Vaidik concluded. “If that happened, the State’s misconduct was probably the deciding factor in the case.”

The case was remanded for a new trial.

Judge Elaine Brown concurred but Judge Cale Bradford dissented with a separate opinion.

Bradford wrote that he would conclude Konkle failed to make a cogent argument regarding fundamental error on appeal.

“It is vaguely possible that the jury disbelieved all of the evidence that Konkle had knowingly killed Steele and, while also disregarding the trial court’s instructions, nonetheless convicted him on the basis of the eggshell-skull doctrine,” Bradford wrote. “Fundamental error, however, requires that a fair trial was rendered impossible, not that an unfair trial was a vague possibility. In my view, this case falls far short of the very high standard for fundamental error.”

Bradford also addressed the sufficiency of evidence in his dissent, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Konkle’s conviction of voluntary manslaughter and noting that Konkle attempted to flee when law enforcement arrived.

Lastly, Bradford looked at Konkle’s sentence and concluded that Konkle has not demonstrated that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense or his character.

The case is Zachariah David Konkle v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-783.