INDIANAPOLIS – The Indiana Supreme Court has overturned a Paoli woman’s 2022 murder conviction.
In 2022, Sabrina Dunn was convicted of murdering her ex-husband, William Dunn. Her attorney, Bob Bottorff, appealed her conviction to the Indiana Supreme Court in February.
The Indiana Supreme Court In a 5-0 decision, the justices threw out Dunn’s conviction in Orange County Circuit Court
The Indiana Supreme Court overturned Dunn’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. She was sentenced to the maximum sentence of 65 years in the Indiana Department of Corrections.
Then, 43-year-old Sabrina Dunn shot and killed 51-year-old William Dunn in October 2020 at a residence on College Hill Street in Paoli. Although the couple was divorced, the pair lived in two separate houses on the same property.
On October 21, 2020, Paoli Police and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department were called to a home in the 830 block of College Hill Street at 7:48 a.m. after a report of a shooting.
When police arrived, they found William Dunn dead inside the home. Detectives with the Paoli Police Department and Indiana State Police began an investigation into the events that occurred and detained Sabrina Dunn for fatally shooting William.
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.
Both had made over a hundred 911 calls over the previous 18 months, and Sabrina had obtained several 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.
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 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 ruling says, “The inclusion of ‘and’ sowed ambiguity, obscuring the fact that either of the two justifications would negate (Sabrina) Dunn’s guilt.” It adds 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.
.
