Indiana court throws out murder convictions for three of the Elkhart Four

[Eugene]

Source: The Guardian

The Indiana supreme court has thrown out the “felony murder” convictions of three of the Elkhart Four, overturning the bizarre situation in which unarmed teenagers who had no intention of killing anybody and who did not pull the trigger were sentenced to 55 years in prison after one of their friends was shot dead by a homeowner whose house they had burgled.

The highest court in the state on Friday stripped out the contentious “felony murder” conviction for Blake Layman, now 19, Anthony Sharp, 21, and Levi Sparks, 20, stating that none of the three had ever engaged in any “dangerously violent and threatening conduct”.

The judges reduced the convictions to simple burglary and ordered the lower courts to resentence the prisoners accordingly.

The case of the Elkhart Four has caught the imaginations of people across the United States and around the world as one of the most egregious examples of the “felony murder” phenomenon. The crime exists on the statute books of 46 states, 11 of which allow people to be prosecuted even though they were the victims, not the perpetrators, of a shooting.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/18/indiana-court-throws-out-murder-convictions-elkhart-four

---

Ed Pilkington in New York
Friday 18 September 2015 19.05 BST

[blackspade]

1. Good, this was a bullshit persecution.

The DA in this case should be reprimanded.

[christx30]

2. I can understand felony murder as a crime.

If you commit a crime, you are responsible for anything that happens. You took your friend into that house that you shouldn't have been in, and you are responsible for his death. It could have been avoided if you hadn't of broken in there.
The kids didn't want to kill anyone. I'm sure the guy would have rather not had anyone break into his home.
That kid is dead forever. He would be alive if they had gone bowling that night. Or stayed home playing video games.

Any word on why they broke into that guy's house? Was it just a random crime that went really bad?

[blackspade]

5. No. The shooter is responsible for his death.

Maybe not criminally, but the shooter made the choice to kill him.
The three plus the dead guy were responsible for the break in, which they should be held to account for (the dead guy was, in a permanent fashion).

What is despicable is for the DA to try to pin a murder rap on the three accomplices.
That is holding them responsible for the actions of others.
Especially, if the shooter is held blameless.
The killing wasn't a crime so there is nothing to charge the other three with.

[christx30]

6. The dead guy would still be alive,

but for the burglary.
It's 2 good reasons not to commit burglaries. You could get shot by the homeowner, or held responsible for any injuries or deaths that come about from your crime.
And I agree that the shooter is blameless. He shouldn't have any consequences from defending his home.

[pocoloco]

10. No brainer!

[blackspade]

11. Again, so the only crime was the break in.

Not the shooting.
Charging the accomplices with a 'murder' that was not committed is just more 'tough on crime' bullshit.

[christx30]

13. The death wouldn't happen

without the break in. Someone is killed because of a DUI, there are enhancements to the driver's sentencing. If you accidently kill someone while doing something stupid (wreckless driving, playing with a gun, Ect) you're charged with involunary manslaughter.
They got their friend killed doing something criminal and stupid. They should pay for that death. Maybe it'll encourage another group of kids to stay home and play Call of Duty instead of breaking into some poor guy's house.

[blackspade]

16. Your comparison doesn't hold up.

His friends did not get him killed.
He got himself killed. And that killing wasn't considered a crime.
So, no, there is no reason to charge them with his death.

And your fall back that over charging is a deterrent to crime is not born out in the statistics.

[christx30]

19. Why did they break into this guy's house? n/t

[blackspade]

20. Read the article.

[christx30]

24. I read the article.

Stupid kids being stupid kids. Trying to take shit that didn't belong to them. I doubt they wanted to sell their stolen stuff to raise money for charity.
I didn't do crap like this when I was a kid. I hate thieves No damned sympathy.

Enjoy that 20 years in prison, fellas.

[Gormy Cuss]

21. That's pretzel logic.

The intent to such laws was to make accessories equally culpable for the crime committed by the prime suspect. The prime suspect was guilty of burglary (and perhaps some threatening-related offenses) but was not guilty of murder. They weren't charged with involuntary manslaughter (a possible charge carrying a max penalty of 6 years in jail,) they were charged with felony murder.

[christx30]

22. Any death that happens during the commission

of a felony is deemed a murder, even if the death is one of the participants of the crime.
Two guys rob me at a 7-11. I shoot one. The cops arrest the other. The surviving robber is charged with the robbery and felony murder of his partner, because the death wouldn't have happened if the robbery hadn't of taken place.

[Gormy Cuss]

23. According to the link this interpretation used here only happens in 11 states

and not in the statutes of the other 35 with similar laws, and even the court in Indiana found this interpretation wanting in this case.
I'm fine with involuntary manslaughter charges for them but not felony murder.

The strict authoritarian bent in this country is straight out of Orwell.

[blackspade]

27. "The strict authoritarian bent in this country is straight out of Orwell"

^^This^^

[NickB79]

15. The man who's house was invaded by 4 strangers in the night?

He did choose to shoot, but given the situation (dark house, middle of the night, outnumbered 4-to-1), it was a choice many people would make

[blackspade]

17. Not saying that that isn't the case.

But it was still the home owners choice to shoot.
I'm not saying that he didn't feel it was necessary, felt bad, etc.
But charging the dead fellas friends with his death has no basis in reality because his death was not a crime.

[christx30]

25. But it was the kids' choice to break into the home.

They weren't poor, desperate children trying to stave off starvation. They were selfish, entitled punks looking to score some cash. Their decision to break in got their friend killed.

[blackspade]

26. That's right, the kids chose to break into the house.

They did not choose to kill their friend.
The homeowner made the choice to shoot him.
The guy that died is responsible for his own death. He was held to account (unfortunately in a permanent fashion) for the break in.
That is not on his friends, as the IN Supreme Court determined.

[NonMetro]

3. And Yet People Wonder Why We Have 2 Million+ People Locked Up.

The law itself is wrong. They should have been tried for the crime they committed: B&E with intent to steal. And 20 years for what they did? Al Capone didn't get that much time!

[elljay]

7. Not the Law, the Application

I have to disagree with you about the law being wrong. In a former life I was a prosecutor (yes, there actually are liberal prosecutors) and then a criminal defense attorney. There is nothing wrong with a felony murder statute; in fact, it can be quite appropriate in some circumstances. For example, had this group entered the home and one of them killed the homeowner, it would have been appropriate to charge all of them with the murder. However, very many prosecutors are conservative and/or have had limited life experiences with diverse groups of people and this is reflected in their charging decisions and sentencing recommendations. In this case, assuming that there is nothing extraordinary about the defendants' backgrounds (such as an extensive history of serious, violent crime), the charge of felony murder was truly not appropriate.

[NonMetro]

18. I'd Say You Have It Right.

Yes, if someone breaks in and kills someone, they can all be tried as accessories. But if a hungry man steals a candy bar, and a clerk shoots at him, misses, and kills an innocent bystander, that's a different story, and the clerk is the one who made the decision to use deadly force, not the guy who stole the candy. Same thing here: those guys who broke in had no intention of harming anyone, and the homeowner is the one who decided to use deadly force, and intended to kill somebody. The homeowner may not be guilty of a crime of murder, either, but that doesn't mean these other ones are. The application of the law was, IMO, specious.

[1Greensix]

4. 'Mercan jestice

We here in 'Merica call those laws jestice. Jokes with malice. Intended to inflict the most damage to a person as possible for even the most benign circumstances, or law broken. Our legal system doesn't work and this is just one law taken to extreme by a DA to make a name for himself and punish kids for misdemeanors as much as the law would allow him to do so. The DA should be jailed for misuse of authority.

[Marrah_G]

8. Good

I don't believe this law was ever intended to be used in this fashion.

[Recursion]

9. Huh. That's pretty much the textbook scenario for Felony Murder, though

Like, literally my old law textbook uses the example of two burglars, one of whom is killed during the crime.

[AngryOldDem]

14. That was my first thought. Has "felony murder" been somehow redefined?

My understanding of it was, if a felony is committed and someone dies during the commission of that felony, it's felony murder because the death would not have occurred if not for the commission of the felony.

[TheOther95Percent]

12. That's an overcharge

This is an overcharge and a bloody stupid use of finite resources.

The justices issued two separate rulings for the individual defendants. The decision came down 5-0 or Per Curiam; which in legal speak is a an ass whooping for the losing party.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2015/09/18/elkhart-four-felony-murder-indiana-supreme-court/72397844/

[struggle4progress]

28. Abstractly, I don't see anything wrong with the "felony murder" concept

but some sanity is required in its application

Suppose, for example, two guys plan a stick-up: one will go in, pretending to have a gun; the other will stay outside to drive get-away. But the guy who goes in really has a gun and kills somebody there. They're caught. The DA leans on the shooter for a plea, threatening to fry him otherwise, so the shooter pleads and agrees to testify against the driver. The driver is charged with murder, found guilty, and sentenced to death.

Stuff like that really happens: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20514903/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/getaway-driver-gets-death-sentence-lifted/#.Vf4OLmRVhHw