The opinion is here. The court bases its ruling on both new fire victim toxicology evidence and the state's withholding of evidence.

We conclude the fire victim toxicology evidence does constitute newly-discovered evidence and the post-conviction court clearly erred in denying Bunch relief on this claim. We also conclude the State‟s failure to turn over a report from the ATF testing of floor samples violates Brady and the post-conviction court also clearly erred in denying Bunch relief on this claim. Because either of these two errors warrants a new trial, we need not address the remaining issues. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

The opinion is 48 pages, here are the highlights:

At the jury trial, no witness testified to seeing Bunch set the fire or hearing her talk about doing so; there was no evidence Bunch had purchased a liquid accelerant and no evidence of flammable liquid on the clothes she was wearing; and there was no testimony regarding a motive for her setting the fire. The State‟s case relied largely on expert testimony describing two points of origin for the fire from visual inspection and testing of floor samples showing evidence of a liquid accelerant.

...There was no direct evidence at Bunch‟s trial that she set multiple fires in the mobile home through use of an accelerant. No one saw her set the fire or heard her refer to setting the fire, there was no evidence she had purchased a liquid accelerant, and there was no motive offered for her to intentionally set a fire. McAllister‟s testimony shows the State‟s theory of fire purposefully set in an open room could not have caused the injuries from which Tony was shown to have died. McAllister‟s conclusion is, if not entirely consistent with the eyewitness testimony, at least not inconsistent with it: that several witnesses testified they saw fire on the floor does not mean the fire started there; testimony regarding large amounts of thick smoke and evidence Tony inhaled soot is consistent with an under-ventilated fire; and testimony that there was no fire on the living room floor in the early stages of the fire is consistent with an accidental fire beginning in the ceiling in the south bedroom.

The largely circumstantial evidence at trial did not overwhelmingly prove Bunch‟s guilt ... [Defense witness ]McAllister‟s fire victim toxicology analysis evidence, although not definitively able to disprove that Bunch committed a crime, at least creates a reasonable doubt that she committed the crime with which she was charged: knowingly using an accelerant to start a fire in the living room of her mobile home.

...The State‟s evidence was largely circumstantial, none of Bunch‟s statements are actually inculpatory, and the toxicology evidence supports her defense of innocence. We conclude it is probable this evidence would produce a different result if offered on retrial.

In addition, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy testified at trial that the toddler died from smoke inhalation “within reasonable medical certainty.” The fire victim toxicology evidence presented in the post-conviction proceeding showed that wasn't the case. He died from the fire itself.

In order to get a new trial based on newly discovered evidence in Indiana, a defendant must meet 9 hurdles. It must show:

(1) the evidence has been discovered since the trial; (2) it is material and relevant; (3) it is not cumulative; (4) it is not merely impeaching; (5) it is not privileged or incompetent; (6) due diligence was used to discover it in time for trial; (7) the evidence is worthy of credit; (8) it can be produced upon a retrial of the case; and (9) it will probably produce a different result at retrial.

The appeals court found:

....Bunch has met her burden of proving the fire victim toxicology analysis evidence meets all nine requirements of newly-discovered evidence. We therefore hold the post-conviction court clearly erred in denying her petition for post-conviction relief on this claim.

On the Brady issue, the state failed to turn over the complete ATF file which contained exculpatory evidence. It didn't disclose the ATF Laboratory’s bench notes, which contradicted the ATF chemist’s testimony as to 2 of the samples.

The State asserted at oral argument that it is the State‟s right and obligation to decide what evidence in its possession is favorable to the accused and therefore required to be turned over to the defense in discovery. We do not disagree that it is initially the State‟s call, but we note that the State then has to live with the consequences of its decision. The State has the affirmative duty to turn over exculpatory evidence even in the absence of a specific request by the defendant.

The Court found the state suppressed the complete ATF file; the suppressed material was covered by Brady; and it was material.

The State concedes it has the obligation to turn over Brady evidence and concedes it did not turn over the entire ATF file to Bunch prior to her trial; it therefore failed to satisfy its obligation in this case. We conclude the State suppressed the complete ATF file.

...the State proceeded primarily on the theory that there were multiple fires in the mobile home, and because multiple, non-communicating fires are more likely than not to be incendiary, Bunch was responsible for setting the fires.

...The undisclosed evidence directly contradicts Kinard‟s trial testimony supporting fires originating in two places. Thus, there is a reasonable probability that but for the prosecutorial failure to disclose this evidence favorable to Bunch, the result of the trial would have been different.

The court said these two issues, the new fire victim toxicology evidence and the Brady violation, are enough for a new trial -- so even though Bunch had additional arguments, it wasn't necessary to review them.

The post-conviction court clearly erred in determining Bunch was not entitled to a new trial on the basis of the fire victim toxicology analysis evidence, as the evidence meets each of the nine requirements to be newly-discovered evidence. The post-conviction court also clearly erred in determining Bunch was not entitled to a new trial on the basis of a Brady violation by the State.

It took from March until today for Kristin Bunch to be released on bail pending retrial. Is the state really going to retry her? It says it will, but I suspect (and hope) it thinks better of it. How will it get a conviction based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt when the fire is of undetermined cause?

The end result: A mother who lost her 3 year old due to a tragic accidental fire was accused and convicted of murder and spent 16 years in prison, during which time she gave birth to another child who was then taken from her. A 16 year old has grown up without the presence of his mother.

"It's kind of hard growing up without a mother," Trenton Bunch said. "I'm just really excited."

As her lawyer said today:

The court of appeals made it very clear in its ruling that they believe that on the evidence that was presented in this courtroom a couple of years ago, that it was likely that a jury would acquit," said attorney Ron Safer. "I would hope the prosecutor's office would have accepted the appeals court's ruling."

Is anyone else humming, "In an Indiana town.... on an Indiana night.

Welcome home, Kristin.