Sharkey v. State

I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that Sharkey's counsel was ineffective because of counsel's failure to recognize that "[Thhe holding in Sills was contradicted by our supreme court in Outlaw v. State, 484 N.E.2d 10 (Ind.1985), a case which came after Sills and was in effect at the time of Sharkey's trial." Opinion, p. 948. The majority continues: "If Sharkey's trial counsel had tendered instructions on Involuntary Manslaughter or Reckless Homicide, the trial court could have determined under Outlaw that it was required to give the instructions." Opinion, p. 948 (emphasis added). If…