More legal insanity: 55 years for "felony murder" without actually killing anyone

[Carrikature]

It's obvious why Sylas has an issue with this. Because the charge should be manslaughter not murder.

Sylas provided, though didn't cite, the actual definition for murder in Indiana. To whit:

Source: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/42/1/35-42-1-1

A person who:
(1) knowingly or intentionally kills another human being;
(2) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product tampering, criminal deviate conduct, kidnapping, rape, robbery, human trafficking, promotion of human trafficking, sexual trafficking of a minor, or carjacking;
(3) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit:
(A) dealing in or manufacturing cocaine or a narcotic drug (IC 35-48-4-1);
(B) dealing in or manufacturing methamphetamine (IC 35-48-4-1.1);
(C) dealing in a schedule I, II, or III controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-2);
(D) dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-3); or
(E) dealing in a schedule V controlled substance; or
(4) knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability (as defined in IC 16-18-2-365);
commits murder, a felony.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.25; P.L.326-1987, SEC.2; P.L.296-1989, SEC.1; P.L.230-1993, SEC.2; P.L.261-1997, SEC.3; P.L.17-2001, SEC.15; P.L.151-2006, SEC.16; P.L.173-2006, SEC.51; P.L.1-2007, SEC.230.

© Copyright Original Source

This was not a murder. It wasn't even manslaughter. It's a Class A felony. Burglary is typically a Class C felony, but in this case it would be elevated to a Class A felony. Small wonder, there's a different set of sentences for that:

Source: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/50/2/35-50-2-4

A person who commits a Class A felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between twenty (20) and fifty (50) years, with the advisory sentence being thirty (30) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.8. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.117; P.L.164-1994, SEC.3; P.L.148-1995, SEC.5; P.L.71-2005, SEC.7.

© Copyright Original Source

[Carrikature]

It basically boils down to the Court of Appeals relying upon Palmer v. State of Indiana. The relevant part is here:

The felony murder language of our murder statute provides:  “A person who ․ [k]ills another human being while committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product tampering, criminal deviate conduct, kidnapping, rape, robbery, or carjacking;  ․ commits murder, a felony.” 6

The statutory language “kills another human being while committing” does not restrict the felony murder provision only to instances in which the felon is the killer, but may also apply equally when, in committing any of the designated felonies, the felon contributes to the death of any person.

Suffice to say they got it wrong before and are throwing another case after it for good measure. It doesn't strike me as remotely intelligent to insist that "a person who kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit...' is somehow not restricted to instances in which the felon is the killer. Extending it to accomplices is understandable, at least, but still an incorrect application.

I guess we can have some solace in the fact that the Indiana Supreme Court is hearing the case and at least recognizes that it's a faulty application.

[Teallaura]

It basically boils down to the Court of Appeals relying upon Palmer v. State of Indiana. The relevant part is here:

The felony murder language of our murder statute provides:  “A person who ․ [k]ills another human being while committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product tampering, criminal deviate conduct, kidnapping, rape, robbery, or carjacking;  ․ commits murder, a felony.” 6

The statutory language “kills another human being while committing” does not restrict the felony murder provision only to instances in which the felon is the killer, but may also apply equally when, in committing any of the designated felonies, the felon contributes to the death of any person.

Suffice to say they got it wrong before and are throwing another case after it for good measure. It doesn't strike me as remotely intelligent to insist that "a person who kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit...' is somehow not restricted to instances in which the felon is the killer. Extending it to accomplices is understandable, at least, but still an incorrect application.

I guess we can have some solace in the fact that the Indiana Supreme Court is hearing the case and at least recognizes that it's a faulty application.

you lost me. The thing fits felony murder as per your citation. The felon does not have to be the killer.

[Carrikature]

you lost me. The thing fits felony murder as per your citation. The felon does not have to be the killer.

Those accused did not kill another person, the homeowner did. Claiming that the felon does not have to be the killer is exactly what I say is nonsensical. In no other case would anyone insist this be the case. You would not be considered a killer if someone came into your office and shot a client. Wanting to account for the unintended death of a person while someone is committing a crime is understandable and already addressed within Indiana state law.

[Teallaura]

Those accused did not kill another person, the homeowner did. Claiming that the felon does not have to be the killer is exactly what I say is nonsensical. In no other case would anyone insist this be the case. You would not be considered a killer if someone came into your office and shot a client. Wanting to account for the unintended death of a person while someone is committing a crime is understandable and already addressed within Indiana state law.

It isn't nonsense. You don't have to agree with it but it makes perfectly good sense to hold those whose criminal behavior directly resulted in death more accountable than mere manslaughter. It recognizes that the unlawful acts create a greater risk of unintentional loss of life and properly should be held to account for creating the situation. Had they not broken in, no one would have died at all. That fault rests with the criminals, not the home owner.

[Darth Executor]

It isn't nonsense. You don't have to agree with it but it makes perfectly good sense to hold those whose criminal behavior directly resulted in death more accountable than mere manslaughter. It recognizes that the unlawful acts create a greater risk of unintentional loss of life and properly should be held to account for creating the situation. Had they not broken in, no one would have died at all. That fault rests with the criminals, not the home owner.

No it doesn't. The guy not only went with them of his own free will but he was the oldest of the bunch and should have known better. Charging them with murder is perverse, even if the law hadn't been on their side (which it was, they didn't kill him and the law as cited in their state explicitly requires them to be the killer).

[Carrikature]

It isn't nonsense. You don't have to agree with it but it makes perfectly good sense to hold those whose criminal behavior directly resulted in death more accountable than mere manslaughter. It recognizes that the unlawful acts create a greater risk of unintentional loss of life and properly should be held to account for creating the situation. Had they not broken in, no one would have died at all. That fault rests with the criminals, not the home owner.

The 'more accountable' is already addressed within Indiana state law by escalating it from Class C to Class A. In no way have I implied the fault lies with the home owner. Nonetheless, the home owner is the one who killed another person. He is considered justified in doing so and hence faces no criminal charges, but he is still the only killer in this series of events.

[Carrikature]

No it doesn't. The guy not only went with them of his own free will but he was the oldest of the bunch and should have known better. Charging them with murder is perverse, even if the law hadn't been on their side (which it was, they didn't kill him and the law as cited in their state explicitly requires them to be the killer).

Exactly.

[Teallaura]

As I stated before the deceased is also guilty of felony murder, they don't bother charging the dead guys. The citation specifcally excluded the felony murder rule - it only applies where felony murder does not. Rename the thing "getting someone killed while committing an inherently dangerous offence and go directly to jail without passing go" if you like - it would still be the same law and make perfect sense.