Elkhart Four

[connor_in]

Elkhart Four case to go before Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday - Elkhart Truth

This case is about four people who were accused of being responsible for the death of Danzele Johnson, 21, who died during an attempted burglary at 1919 Frances Ave. on Oct. 3, 2012.

The homeowner, Rodney Scott, was at his house when Layman, Sparks, Sharp, Johnson and Jose Quiroz broke into the house. He opened fire against the group when he heard movement on the first floor of his house, shooting and killing Johnson.

Quiroz was also charged with felony murder, and he pleaded guilty in November 2012.
Teens receive sentence on murder charge - Elkhart Truth

Today at 10:30 am EST, 3 of the 4 will have a hearing in front of the Indiana State Supreme Court.

In briefs filed with the court, the attorneys argue that Indiana’s felony murder law was incorrectly applied in the case.

Layman, Sharp and Sparks appealed their convictions and sentences to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which upheld their convictions but ruled that their sentences were too harsh.

Thursday’s hearing will be divided into two parts. Lawyers for the teens will have 20 minutes to present their arguments and can decide how they want to divide that time among themselves, according to a notice sent to the attorneys by the court.

Attorneys for the state of Indiana will then have 20 minutes to explain why the convictions are appropriate and the court should leave the case with the court of appeals’ ruling.

The arguments will be streamed live on the court’s website (https://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/default.aspx?&id=1766&view=detail&yr=&when=&page=1&court=sup&search=&direction=%20ASC&future=False&sort=&judge=&county=&admin=False&pageSize=20​ ). Elkhart Truth reporter Jeff Parrott will live tweet the proceedings from the courtroom. For updates, follow Parrot on Twitter at @JeffHParrott.

I bring this here for you guys for two reasons. First, because they are actually going to be streaming the hearing today. Second, and more importantly, because of the case itself. Basically it breaks down to these guys break into a house, the homeowner shoots and kills one of them, and the rest of the guys are caught and convicted of murder for their fellow thief.

I hadn't heard of this before, but thought it was interesting and wondered what you guys thought of the case and/or even the concept of the case. (Especially since no one seems to have a problem with the conviction, only the sentencing.)

 

[IrishInFl]

I think I actually saw this on Dr Phil a while ago. I'm conflicted. The kids didn't pull the trigger, so that confuses me as to why they are charged for murder. On the other hand, they all agreed to rob this guy, so if they never went, their friend would probably still be alive today. I don't know what to think, I'd like to hear all arguments.

 

[Irish#1]

I think I actually saw this on Dr Phil a while ago. I'm conflicted. The kids didn't pull the trigger, so that confuses me as to why they are charged for murder. On the other hand, they all agreed to rob this guy, so if they never went, their friend would probably still be alive today. I don't know what to think, I'd like to hear all arguments.

Maybe the others coerced Johnson to go along with them and that's why they were convicted?

 

[IrishLax]

Felony murder is truly one of the most convoluted laws in our justice system. It rightfully exists so that if someone dies during the commission of a felony there is a responsible party... and this responsible party is every felon involved.

But it gets really murky when one of the deceased IS the felon. Lots (most?) places use the "agency" approach which makes more sense... all accomplices accept responsibility for the actions of other accomplices; but if a death is caused to one of the party of felons by someone resisting the felony (cop, home owner, store clerk, etc.) that's not one of your actions and you're not responsible for it. But some other places only look at "proximate cause"... if the felony is the proximate cause to why a death occurred then everyone is responsible for it even if the death was of an accomplice. I don't know which way Indiana leans.

I've always thought the "proximate cause" angle is really stupid. Hypothetically, if you and your buddy shoplifted and while attempting to flee got shot by a store owner... you could possibly be guilty of MURDER despite never being armed and never threatening anyone. Or even more extreme... if you were fleeing and your buddy got tackled by mall security and broke his neck you could be guilty of MURDER. Makes no sense, IMO.

 

[Emcee77]

Yeah, felony murder is often controversial, and in extreme hypotheticals it can seem pretty unfair, but it has deep roots in the common law and is pretty firmly entrenched in most jurisdictions.

Lax, the predicate crime usually has to be a "forcible" felony. Not shoplifting. Armed robbery is the classic predicate crime, at least in my experience.

I had a case where two kids robbed a gas station with a gun, cops arrived as they were leaving, both kids ran, cop pursued one kid, the kid climbed a fence, reached into his pocket and turned as if he had a gun, the cop fired, the kid died (it turned out he had no gun) ... and his co-offender was convicted of murder. My judge on that case was a former public defender who clearly thought the result was unfair, but the law is the law, and we had to convict.

I remember learning in law school that some jurisdictions have done away with felony murder, but if that's even true I don't think it's many.

 

[IrishLax]

Yeah, felony murder is often controversial, and in extreme hypotheticals it can seem pretty unfair, but it has deep roots in the common law and is pretty firmly entrenched in most jurisdictions.

Lax, the predicate crime usually has to be a "forcible" felony. Not shoplifting. Armed robbery is the classic predicate crime, at least in my experience.

I had a case where two kids robbed a gas station with a gun, cops arrived as they were leaving, both kids ran, cop pursued one kid, the kid climbed a fence, reached into his pocket and turned as if he had a gun, the cop fired, the kid died (it turned out he had no gun) ... and his co-offender was convicted of murder. My judge on that case was a former public defender who clearly thought the result was unfair, but the law is the law. I remember learning in law school that some jurisdictions have done away with felony murder, but if that's even true I don't think it's many.

Did not realize that, thanks. What exactly is a forcible felony?

What about grand theft auto if someone left the keys in a car and unlocked? Is that a forcible felony?

 

[Emcee77]

Did not realize that, thanks. What exactly is a forcible felony?

What about grand theft auto if someone left the keys in a car and unlocked? Is that a forcible felony?

No, IIRC, forcible felonies are only those in which the criminal uses force or threat of force. So a carjacking at gunpoint would be a forcible felony; stealing a car that you just happened to notice had keys in the ignition is not. The rationale is that you shouldn't be held liable for murder unless you committed a crime knowing there was a chance that someone could be killed in the course of that crime. In almost every case I've ever personally been involved in, the predicate case was an armed robbery of one kind or another. Might have been an attempted murder or two in there.

 

[IrishLax]

No, IIRC, forcible felonies are only those in which the criminal uses force or threat of force. So a carjacking at gunpoint would be a forcible felony; stealing a car that you just happened to notice had keys in the ignition is not. The rationale is that you shouldn't be held liable for murder unless you committed a crime knowing there was a chance that someone could be killed in the course of that crime. In almost every case I've ever personally been involved in, the predicate case was robbery of one kind or another.

You're a fountain of knowledge. So this attempted burglary IS a forcible crime because they had to use force to enter the premises, correct? But if the door was unlocked and they walked inside it wouldn't necessarily be the case as it'd just be trespassing?

 

[Emcee77]

You're a fountain of knowledge. So this attempted burglary IS a forcible crime because they had to use force to enter the premises, correct?

Maybe. It would depend on the relevant Indiana statute. Usually there is a statute that actually enumerates the crimes that count as forcible felonies, or at least defines the term "forcible felony." That's how it worked in Illinois, IIRC (I don't do criminal law any more).

If this case is controversial, you might have put your finger on the reason why, though. I don't know anything about this case other than what is in the OP, but these guys didn't actually threaten force against the homeowner, did they? He just shot at them because they broke into his home. Pretty harsh to charge the co-offenders with murder. OTOH, they had to know that it was reasonably possible that, in breaking into someone's house, they might encounter armed resistance.

 

[woolybug25]

It's an interesting case. One very similar to a family member of my brother in laws about a decade ago. A 17 year old, charged as an adult, was convicted of murder (maybe manslaughter? Not sure) because they robbed a convenient store and the shop owner killed the other guy he was with. This young man had no past charges or history, but it didn't matter. Part of me feels for the kid because he was a young guy trying to impress his older friend. He was a good student and was going to go to college. Got involved with the wrong crowd during his senior year and it ended up costing him. He's still in prison today.

Seems like an archaic way of looking at crime. Very black/white in regards to charging a young man that seemingly was "in the wrong place at the wrong time" with a crime much greater than what he intended to commit. That being said, there is no way to tell if the gun he possessed would have led to him committing the very act he was convicted for. Seems like the law almost punishes a person for their intent rather than the actual crime. In this case, the young man never pulled a trigger. He never actually committed the act in which he was convicted. It still seems quite puzzling to me.

 

[ulukinatme]

I could see where maybe the felons should get a lesser manslaughter charge or something for their actions. They all knew the risks involved and made a conscious decision to rob a guy, so they deserve to spend some time behind bars, but I don't know if a huge sentence is in order since they didn't pull the trigger (Which the home owner had every right to do).

 

[Black Irish]

The case and the concept of felony murder as it's being explained here is just too much of a stretch for me. I'm all for being tough on criminals, especially if they are repeat offenders. But to charge several people for murder when someone else was responsible for the person's death is getting way off base. Besides, it's not like these guys are going to get a slap on the wrist. Depending on the circumstance, they would already be looking a laundry list of heavy duty felonies: armed robbery or burglary, possession of a deadly weapon/firearm (if they were armed), and so on.

 

[Emcee77]

It's an interesting case. One very similar to a family member of my brother in laws about a decade ago. A 17 year old, charged as an adult, was convicted of murder (maybe manslaughter? Not sure) because they robbed a convenient store and the shop owner killed the other guy he was with. This young man had no past charges or history, but it didn't matter. Part of me feels for the kid because he was a young guy trying to impress his older friend. He was a good student and was going to go to college. Got involved with the wrong crowd during his senior year and it ended up costing him. He's still in prison today.

Seems like an archaic way of looking at crime. Very black/white in regards to charging a young man that seemingly was "in the wrong place at the wrong time" with a crime much greater than what he intended to commit. That being said, there is no way to tell if the gun he possessed would have led to him committing the very act he was convicted for. Seems like the law almost punishes a person for their intent rather than the actual crime. In this case, the young man never pulled a trigger. He never actually committed the act in which he was convicted. It still seems quite puzzling to me.

That's exactly it. It's one of these weird things passed down from the common law, and policymakers can't figure out whether it still makes sense. No legislator wants to seem soft on crime, you know? That's a major impediment to getting rid of it.

 

[ACamp1900]

Things like this aren't easy, a famous case near us occurred about 15 years back when some high school seniors would routinely drive up to Big Bear for weekends to party... There were four of them and they'd take turns driving there and back, always drunk... The inevitable happened after like the 10th trip and they flew off the road off the side of a mountain, rolled down, only the driver (this time) survived... He got three consecutive life sentences for that....

Some may remember my niece's murder being discussed here a few years back, dude stabbed her, drug her into a back room and locked her in until she bleed out,... He got twenty years and will almost surely be out before then...

It's never apples to apples in any two cases but it's always interesting to me what gets hefty sentences and what doesn't ...

 

[IrishLax]

The Elkhart Four and the Unjust Application of the Felony Murder Rule on Teens | Steve Drizin

Found this article to add on to what connor_in posted. It's penned by a Northwestern Law professor. Didn't realize that three of the four were minors.

Thought the house was vacant, not armed.

One guy (who got shot himself) was sentenced to 55 years in jail, as was the lone adult. Another guy who never entered the house got 50 years. And the third minor got 45 years as part of a plea deal.

The plight of the "Elkhart Four", as the teens are now known, is a consequence of Indiana's felony murder statute, a law that allows participants in certain felonies -- in this case burglary -- to be convicted of murder if anyone is killed during the felony.

^Answers my earlier question.

And some crazy stats time:

Alarmingly, a report from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International shows that approximately 26 percent of the 2,500 juveniles in the U.S. sentenced to life without parole received these sentences based on felony murder convictions. Though these children did not kill or intend to kill the victim, they have been sentenced to die behind bars.

 

[Black Irish]

The Elkhart Four and the Unjust Application of the Felony Murder Rule on TeensMichigan|MichiganSteve Drizin

Found this article to add on to what connor_in posted. It's penned by a Northwestern Law professor. Didn't realize that three of the four were minors.

Thought the house was vacant, not armed.

One guy (who got shot himself) was sentenced to 55 years in jail, as was the lone adult. Another guy who never entered the house got 50 years. And the third minor got 45 years as part of a plea deal.


^Answers my earlier question.

And some crazy stats time:

Too harsh, IMO. I'm no attorney, but I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that if these 4 guys broke into the house, waved loaded guns in the home owner's face, and stole everything they could get their hands on, they'd probably be looking at less jail time than they got for the felony murder charge.

 

[greyhammer90]

I remember reading a case 1L that was similar to this. In that case IIRC the robber had already been caught, was in a police car watching his partner run from the cops and an officer ended up shooting his partner while he watched. Not very often you become guilty of murder while you're in handcuffs and watching.

 

[Corry]

Too harsh, IMO. I'm no attorney, but I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that if these 4 guys broke into the house, waved loaded guns in the home owner's face, and stole everything they could get their hands on, they'd probably be looking at less jail time than they got for the felony murder charge.

Completely agree. It's like they're being punished for being bad at crime.

What exactly is the supreme court hearing today? Is there a chance that a lesser charge is going to be handed out?

 

[Emcee77]

Holy shitballs those sentences are outrageously long.

Not sure what exactly is being argued today, but here are links to the appellate court opinions in these kids' cases:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...810714687&q=17+n.e.3d+957&hl=en&as_sdt=400006

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...682782943&q=16+n.e.3d+470&hl=en&as_sdt=400006

I can't believe the minimum sentence for felony murder is 45 years. Utterly outrageous. The state legislature has got to get off its ass and do something about that, especially if the state Supreme Court doesn't in this case.

 

[Irish#1]

I'm guessing this law was written in hopes of dissuading others to participate?