## Facts

- Jack Edwin Suprenant, Jr. lived in Gary, Indiana with Kerry Bruckman and her three children, two of whom he fathered.
- Over several days, Suprenant and Bruckman argued, including about Bruckman’s involvement with a mutual friend.
- On September 16, 2006, Bruckman said she intended to leave Suprenant and began gathering her clothes.
- Suprenant tried to persuade her to stay; when unsuccessful, he stabbed her repeatedly.
- Bruckman’s screams woke the children, who entered the bedroom and saw part of the assault.
- Suprenant chased the children back to their bedrooms and then continued attacking Bruckman.
- Bruckman suffered sixty-one wounds, including forty-nine stab wounds, and died.
- Suprenant was charged with murder, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to 60 years (the statutory maximum).

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of murder based on alleged “sudden heat.”
2. Whether the 60-year sentence was inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) in light of the nature of the offense and Suprenant’s character.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the murder conviction.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a voluntary manslaughter instruction because there was no serious evidentiary dispute that Suprenant acted under sudden heat.
- The court affirmed the 60-year sentence, concluding it was not inappropriate under Rule 7(B) given the offense’s brutality and the record concerning Suprenant’s character.

## Legal Principles

- Under Indiana law, voluntary manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of murder, but it is atypical because “sudden heat” operates as a mitigating factor that must be separately proved.
- “Sudden heat” refers to anger, rage, resentment, or terror sufficient to obscure an ordinary person’s reason, preventing deliberation and premeditation and rendering the person incapable of cool reflection.
- A voluntary manslaughter instruction is improper when there is no serious evidentiary dispute about sudden heat; in that circumstance, instructing on voluntary manslaughter in addition to murder is error.
- For Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) review, a sentence is revised only if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender; extreme violence and circumstances of the killing may justify a maximum sentence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Suprenant’s murder conviction and maximum 60-year sentence, ruling that the evidence showed a sustained, brutal killing following days of conflict rather than a legally cognizable, sudden provocation creating a serious dispute on sudden heat, and that the sentence was not inappropriate under Rule 7(B).


Suprenant v. State, 925 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)