MADISON - A state appeals court Thursday upheld Mary Sidoff's first-degree intentional homicide conviction in the October 2005 shooting death of 88-year-old Ardelle Sturzenegger, but Sidoff's attorney wants the Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear the case.
The District 4 Court of Appeals rejected Sidoff's claims that her attorney was ineffective in representing her at trial by failing to object to erroneous jury instructions and failure to include a jury instruction for the crime of homicide by negligent use of deadly weapon.
The appeals court affirmed the conviction, stating that since the jurors were convinced the state had proven the most serious charge, any error in failing to instruct on a lesser offense "simply did not matter."
Sidoff was charged with first-degree intentional homicide, hiding a corpse and theft from a corpse after police found Sturzenegger's body wrapped in a tarpaulin in the horse pasture of the rural Monticello farmhouse rented by Sidoff and her husband, David. Sturzenegger had been shot in the head.
Testimony at trial suggested three versions of how the Janesville woman died. Sidoff told police she unintentionally shot Sturzenegger inside the home to defend Sidoff's infant son. Sidoff claimed that Sturzenegger was struggling with him and Sidoff was afraid that Sturzenegger was going to hurt the child. In a second version, according to Sidoff's trial testimony, she did not shoot Sturzenegger, but David somehow was involved. The state's theory was that Sidoff shot Sturzenegger "execution style" to get Sturzenegger's money. Sturzenegger was known to carry approximately $50,000 in her purse.
Other evidence showed that Sidoff, who worked at the University of Wisconsin hospital, met Sturzenegger when Sturzenegger was admitted to the psychiatric unit for "emergency detention." Sturzenegger had $57,000 in a canvas bag when admitted and Sidoff knew about the money, according to the appeals decision.
After Sidoff was convicted Sept. 25, 2006, on all three charges, Green County Circuit Judge James Beer sentenced her to life in prison.
On appeal Sidoff's new attorney, William Schmaal, argued that the jury instructions did not take into account Sidoff's statement to police that she accidentally shot Sturzenegger to protect her son.
In a phone interview Thursday, Schmaal said the appeals court made a "fundamental mistake" in finding that there was no harm to Sidoff in jurors not being allowed to consider the lesser offense of negligent homicide.
"The appeals court can't say that the first-degree intentional homicide conviction eliminates all other issues without determining whether the lesser included offense instructions weren't given properly," Schmaal said.
"Without being able to consider if Sidoff was guilty of negligent homicide, the jury only had the choice of convicting her of first-degree murder or acquittal, and that's not an accurate choice given the facts," he said.
Schmaal said he wants the state Supreme Court to take the case to correct the appeals court error.
Green County District Attorney Gary Luhman said Thursday he hadn't read the opinion yet, but disagreed that the facts supported jury consideration of negligent homicide. Jurors were instructed they could consider three different homicide charges depending upon what they determined were the material facts, and Sturzenegger being shot in the back of the head didn't support Sidoff's negligence theory.
"There's a difference between recklessness and criminal negligence ... and we didn't believe the evidence showed negligence, at best it was recklessness," Luhman said.
The District 4 Court of Appeals rejected Sidoff's claims that her attorney was ineffective in representing her at trial by failing to object to erroneous jury instructions and failure to include a jury instruction for the crime of homicide by negligent use of deadly weapon.
The appeals court affirmed the conviction, stating that since the jurors were convinced the state had proven the most serious charge, any error in failing to instruct on a lesser offense "simply did not matter."
Sidoff was charged with first-degree intentional homicide, hiding a corpse and theft from a corpse after police found Sturzenegger's body wrapped in a tarpaulin in the horse pasture of the rural Monticello farmhouse rented by Sidoff and her husband, David. Sturzenegger had been shot in the head.
Testimony at trial suggested three versions of how the Janesville woman died. Sidoff told police she unintentionally shot Sturzenegger inside the home to defend Sidoff's infant son. Sidoff claimed that Sturzenegger was struggling with him and Sidoff was afraid that Sturzenegger was going to hurt the child. In a second version, according to Sidoff's trial testimony, she did not shoot Sturzenegger, but David somehow was involved. The state's theory was that Sidoff shot Sturzenegger "execution style" to get Sturzenegger's money. Sturzenegger was known to carry approximately $50,000 in her purse.
Other evidence showed that Sidoff, who worked at the University of Wisconsin hospital, met Sturzenegger when Sturzenegger was admitted to the psychiatric unit for "emergency detention." Sturzenegger had $57,000 in a canvas bag when admitted and Sidoff knew about the money, according to the appeals decision.
After Sidoff was convicted Sept. 25, 2006, on all three charges, Green County Circuit Judge James Beer sentenced her to life in prison.
On appeal Sidoff's new attorney, William Schmaal, argued that the jury instructions did not take into account Sidoff's statement to police that she accidentally shot Sturzenegger to protect her son.
In a phone interview Thursday, Schmaal said the appeals court made a "fundamental mistake" in finding that there was no harm to Sidoff in jurors not being allowed to consider the lesser offense of negligent homicide.
"The appeals court can't say that the first-degree intentional homicide conviction eliminates all other issues without determining whether the lesser included offense instructions weren't given properly," Schmaal said.
"Without being able to consider if Sidoff was guilty of negligent homicide, the jury only had the choice of convicting her of first-degree murder or acquittal, and that's not an accurate choice given the facts," he said.
Schmaal said he wants the state Supreme Court to take the case to correct the appeals court error.
Green County District Attorney Gary Luhman said Thursday he hadn't read the opinion yet, but disagreed that the facts supported jury consideration of negligent homicide. Jurors were instructed they could consider three different homicide charges depending upon what they determined were the material facts, and Sturzenegger being shot in the back of the head didn't support Sidoff's negligence theory.
"There's a difference between recklessness and criminal negligence ... and we didn't believe the evidence showed negligence, at best it was recklessness," Luhman said.