Skip to comments.Cunningham convicted [of shooting man who raped her daughter]
Posted on 10/28/2005 10:09:54 AM PDT by SmithL
MARYVILLE Kimberly Cunningham, the 33-year-old South Knoxville woman who shot to death a man she believes raped her daughter twice when the child was 10, was convicted today of voluntary manslaughter in the man's death.
The verdict was returned about 10 a.m. by the seven-woman, five-man jury after five hours of deliberation Thursday and one hour today.
Cunningham had been on trial on a charge of second-degree murder, but the jury acquitted her of that and found her guilty of the lesser charge. She had already been tried once in the death of Coy Hundley.
In that trial last April, she was acquitted of first-degree murder, and the jury deadlocked on all lesser charges.
Cunningham will be sentenced on Dec. 19 by Judge D. Kelly Thomas in Blount County Circuit Court.
Good shooting, Kimmy!
Good shooting, Kimmy!
This is clearly a case where Jury Nullification is justified. Of course, don't expect anyone sitting on a jury to ever be informed of what that concept is by anyone on the legal or judicial profession... And don't expect to be ever sitting on a Jury if you know what it is either.
Guys, it isn't charging her with different crimes until one sticks. Its the same crime. The first jury came back and said "we dunno" if she is guilty or not. So, you have got to find a jury that can make a decision.
You may not like it in this situation, that's fine. But it has long been the law, and its hardly unusual.
He needed a killin' works here in GA too.
Voluntary manslaughter is a more unusual lesser offense because it requires proof of sudden passion on the part of the defendant which excuses his or her culpable mental state. States vary on whether the defendant has the burden to prove sudden passion or whether the State has the burden to prove lack of sudden passion.
Double jeopardy does not come into play because the original jury neither convicted nor acquitted the defendant on the lesser offense of manslaughter. Since the jury did acquit the defendant on the greater charge of murder, the State could only re-try the defendant for the lesser offense.
Well, no it's not "justifiable homicide." It's just plain old criminal homicide. If the guy really did do it, I'm not shedding any tears over him. But Ms. Cunningham (nor anybody else) is allowed to simply kill those whom they think "need killin'".
>>>>He would be proud to go to jail for it too.
I think the same. Hurt one of mine and I'll have no hesitation to do the time. A parent has to defend his children, its part of the job.
However, I do agree that there is definitely a need to stay away from vigilante justice.
from my standpoint....
as awful as it is, nothing makes me believe more IN humanity than stories of parents protecting their kids and doing in those who've harmed them.
Guess I'm just a gushy 'ole romantic about those things >:>
She is entitled to know, in no uncertain terms, "THE NATURE AND THE CAUSE" of whatever sharge she is presented with. If she wears yellow pants on Friday, they can't charge her with multiple crimes of "wearing yellow" and "wearing pants on Friday".
Ultimately, the law is supposed to look at the SUBSTANCE of things, not some prosecutors ambitions and disappointments.
The prosecutor probably made the case that she armed herself, sought the culprit out and then confronted him.
It's heat of the moment, not heat of the hour.
Admitting he engaged in recreational penetration of her daughter does not mean rape. You can think all you want, but I who went to college in the early nineties at PC's peak. I know many women who called it "hooking up" when they were drunk after the party and "rape" in the morning. It is entirely possible the daughter called it rape when her mother found out she was not a virgin and he may very well have admitted to sex, but there is certainly no reason to believe beyond a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that a rape occured 4 yrs prior.
As I tend to say, "There are some things worth going to jail for."
There are also some things worth dieing for; in case you're interested.
You have some serious issues.
You're nuts. The girl would have been 10 years old at the time of your "recreational sex." Any man who has sex -- "consensual" or not -- with a 10 yo girl, is a rapist.
A TEN YEAR OLD BABY??? You are sick.
The child rapist admitted guilt. The mother was absolutely right in doing what she did.
The law is very broken, the justice system is not just, and I don't blame parents one single bit for punishing the violaters of their children since the justice system slaps them on the hand and then regurgitates them out so they can commit further violence and mayhem on children.
Sorry to sound so - extreme - but the system is broken is thousands of children's lives are ruined because of fiends who deserve death and don't get it.
She was ten years old
Part of defense is deterrence. A cop who I respect very much once told me, "If a guy knows, really knows that if he hurts one of my kids, I'm going to blow his head off, then odds are that he won't take that chance."
I'm with you there. How can she be charged with manslaughter and 1st degree murder for shooting one man? It seems like it should be one killing - one crime - one trial. This thought always occurs to me when I hear a litany of charges being brought against a person for seemingly one crime.
Wow, I can't beleive the responses here. This woman should have been rightfully found guilty and executed on first degree murder charges, but since that's not going to happen, I honestly hope she spends the rest of her life in prison.
All we have here is an accusation folks. An admittedly troubled teenager accused a man of molesting her, and the man was murdered in cold blood without getting any chance to defend himself. When she realized that she was going to face prison time for what she had done, the murderer claimed that the victim had admitted it to her in a fashion that defies both logic and normal belief. There is no, nada, zip, zilch, zero evidence to support her claim that he confessed...we're just supposed to take the word of a confessed murderer that the victim decided to mockingly confess his "crimes" to an angry parent holding a firearm in his face.
>>Admitting he engaged in recreational penetration of her daughter does not mean rape. You can think all you want, but I who went to college in the early nineties at PC's peak. I know many women who called it "hooking up" when they were drunk after the party and "rape" in the morning. It is entirely possible the daughter called it rape when her mother found out she was not a virgin and he may very well have admitted to sex, but there is certainly no reason to believe beyond a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that a rape occured 4 yrs prior.<<
When she WAS 10???
If you still hold the same opinion, you are one sick puppy.
Justice starts at the TOP... if there were any justice Sandy Burgular would be in Levenworth.. playing checkers with Bill Clinton.. with Marc Rich as their b!tch..
Justice only happens to the poor or politically weak, sometimes.. And Americans LIKE THAT, or they would do something about it.. they don't..
I would not have shot him. I would have taken him down and stomped on his testicles until they were bloody pulp. Then I would have broken some bones for good measure.
In that kind of situation I can't imagine fewer than 3 strong men being able to pull me off of the SOB.
Thanks for responding. I think under these circumstances I would have done the same thing. But I hope she took the time and trouble to make arrangements for her daughter before all this.
Hopefully she will et a slap on the wrist. If it turns out that someone else committed the rapes she can kill them too.
>>An admittedly troubled teenager accused a man of molesting her, and the man was murdered in cold blood without getting any chance to defend himself.<<
I have been all over Google about this and I can not find where she is a troubled teenager.
This is her uncle and she says she was raped when she was 9.
Also, the mother drove to the Police directly after and gave herself up. Apparently there was enough evidence to the mom that this was true.
I agree with you to a point, but only to a point.
You would have KILLED him if you THOUGHT he raped your daughter? Do you want to change that?
Wait a minute. So if you get aquitted of homocide, they can charge you with voluntary manslaughter? That doesn't sound right!
>>>Double jeopardy only applies if there is an actual decision in the first trial. As the Jury deadlocked, there was no decision, and she can legally be retried. >>>
They only deadlocked on the lessor charges, the homocide charge was as aquittal.
Yeah right. It was her uncle, and she was 10 years old.
You would have KILLED him if you THOUGHT he raped your daughter? YES!
Do you want to change that? NO!
If it turns out that someone else committed the rapes I suspect you'll agree that after she's done someone should shoot her for shooting the wrong guy the first time.
Vigilantism, it makes the world go 'round.
>>>Double jeopardy does not come into play because the original jury neither convicted nor acquitted the defendant on the lesser offense of manslaughter. Since the jury did acquit the defendant on the greater charge of murder, the State could only re-try the defendant for the lesser offense.>>>
So how can they charge her with murder AND voluntary manslaughter?
Because voluntary manslaughter is a lesser offense of murder.
I am wondering who witnesed this "admission of guilt."
Well, that may be what the law says, but in many parts of Texas and probably elsewhere across the country a case like this might very well get no-billed. If it happened to my daughter, I'd respond the same way. Expecting "justice" from our legal system is a futile effort.
Yes, I have serious issues with vigilante justice. Someone is in the process of commiting a crime, blow their head off. But having this woman as judge, jury and executioner is hardly rule of law.
So, you just would go and kill someone on the word of your daughter?
There was, an acquital on first degree murder charges for the offense of killing him.
Now they convicted her of voluntary manslaughter for the offense of killing him.
Different charges, same offense. Shouldn't last 30 minutes in an appeals court.
If they had convicted her on a charge regarding another offense, it would have been ok. As it is, this is as clear a case of double jeopardy as you will ever see.
Of course, they do it all the time in politically charged cases.
That's exactly my first question, before emotionally jumping to conclusions on such a sensitive issue.
And my next question is, if she WAS right, was the scumbag charged, tried and convicted?
I can't say I blame her much, but we do have a criminal justice system in place for such matters.
My feeling is that this article is missing some very key pieces of information.
(I'm not saying I wouldn't have killed him, I would have just done it a little differently.)
They should make her the sheriff.
here's another link that doesn't require subscription
I'm inclined to believe her - the mind does strange things under stress.