ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
John Pinnow Gregory F. Zoeller
Greenwood, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Ian McLean
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
______________________________________________________________________________
In the FILED
Indiana Supreme Court May 08 2009, 12:06 pm
_________________________________
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
No. 49S02-0905-PC-218 tax court
ALEXA WHEDON,
Appellant (Petitioner below),
v.
STATE OF INDIANA,
Appellee (Respondent below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49G04-9903-CF-035467
The Honorable Patricia J. Gifford, Judge
The Honorable Steven J. Rubick, Magistrate
_________________________________
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0808-PC-677
_________________________________
May 8, 2009
Per curiam.
Alexa Whedon was convicted of murder in a bench trial during which several women
who were in jail with Whedon testified as to incriminating statements that they said Whedon had
made to them. We affirmed Whedon’s conviction on direct appeal. Whedon v. State, 765
N.E.2d 1276 (Ind. 2002). Whedon then initiated this proceeding, contending, inter alia, that
newly discovered evidence entitled her to post-conviction relief, to wit, that the testimony of two
of the jailhouse witnesses had not been truthful. The post-conviction court denied relief because
the claim did not meet the requirements for newly discovered evidence enunciated in Fox v.
State, 568 N.E.2d 1006, 1007 (Ind. 1991), and other cases. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Whedon v. State, 900 N.E.2d 498, 505 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). We grant transfer and summarily
affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).
During the post-conviction hearing, Whedon sought to present the testimony of Rob
Warden, Executive Director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at the Northwestern
University School of Law, as an expert on “incentivized witness or snitch testimony.” The
testimony to which Warden was consulted was the same jailhouse witness testimony referred to
in the preceding paragraph. The post-conviction court held Warden’s testimony to be
inadmissible and the Court of Appeals affirmed this determination. Because the claim that the
testimony of the two jailhouse witnesses had not been truthful did not constitute “newly
discovered evidence,” it was not available for collateral review. Warden’s testimony was
properly excluded on those grounds and it was therefore not necessary to address the issue of its
general admissibility.
2