Sheila Kay Grevenstuk, 34, and Michael Grevenstuk, 34, were each sentenced Thursday in Kosciusko Superior Court to four years in prison for arson, a Class C felony. However, Mrs. Grevenstuk had two years of her sentence suspended for probation and Mr. Grevenstuk's whole term was suspended.

Believing that Mrs. Grevenstuk was more culpable than her husband, Prosecutor David Kolbe asked the judge to consider sending her to prison if he felt that one of the parents should remain in the home with their four children.

"I believe that (Mrs. Grevenstuk) is the brighter of the two," Kolbe said. "She was more capable of planning and designing this thing."

Judge Robert Burner did choose to imprison Mrs. Grevenstuk over her husband, but said he did so for medical reasons and not because he believed one was more guilty than the other. Mr. Grevenstuk takes six different prescription medications, has had open heart surgery and suffers from a back injury.

The couple was accused of arson after a May 2, 1994, fire at their Beer Road home at Milford. Gasoline was poured throughout the home and the structure set on fire. When firefighters arrived at the house, it was padlocked from the outside.

An investigation revealed a 2-gallon can of gas in the dining room of the house, and burn patterns on the floor indicated an accelerant had been poured over it.

Because a firefighter was injured while working to extinguish the blaze, both were also charged with the offense as a Class A felony. Those charges were dropped in exchange for guilty pleas on the Class C felonies.

Kolbe said that while the case was technically arson, it was actually a fraud case because the couple burned their home in hopes of receiving an insurance settlement. "A lot of fires in Kosciusko County are fraud and should be deterred," Kolbe said. Sentencing the defendants to prison would offer such a deterrent, he added.

Burner denied defense attorney Larry Miller's request for the sentencing to be continued or the previous plea to be set aside. Miller said that the Grevenstuks passed polygraph tests administered after the plea agreements were made. However, Burner pointed out that such tests are not admissible as evidence unless both sides sign a stipulation to accept the tests prior to completing them. Also, he said, the plea agreements could not be set aside because no new evidence was presented.

Miller then argued for light sentences, preferably probation, because of the hardship sending both parents to prison would cause the family.

"The seriousness of the crime speaks for itself," Miller said. "Justice is well served with long-term probation." He added that the penalties of a felony conviction and restrictions on his clients' lives would serve as a message to the community against such criminal activity.

Part of the hardship, Miller said, would be financial. However, Kolbe said, that is not pertinent since neither of the couple is employed and their children receive Social Security disability. "From a purely financial aspect, imprisonment may lighten the family load," Kolbe said.

The couple was also ordered to make restitution for damages and to pay court costs. [[In-content Ad]]