ILNews

COA upholds convictions of man who planned to kill attorney, judge, ex-wife

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has denied an appeal from a man who was convicted of planning to kill his ex-wife, her attorney, and a judge, ruling that amended charges did not negatively impact his rights and sufficient evidence existed to uphold the conviction.

In Nicholas Suding v. State of Indiana, No. 32A01-1002-CR-156, Nicholas Suding was convicted of three counts of conspiracy to commit murder as Class A felonies. In his appeal, Suding claimed that amendments filed after the omnibus date in October 2009 negatively affected his ability to defend against the amended charges.

At a hearing in June 2009, Suding’s ex-wife, Tamara Scott, and their daughter, S.S., were granted a protective order against Suding. Following that hearing, Suding’s wife, Renee, said he talked about killing Scott, her attorney, and the judge who entered the protective order.

After Suding told his wife to follow the judge and attorney to find out where they lived, she reported her husband to police, who gave her a recording device. She recorded a conversation with Suding in which he described how he would blow up the judge’s house with propane, and how he would kill his other victims. Police then arrested Suding.

Originally charged in July 2009 with one count of conspiracy to commit murder, Suding was charged with five additional counts in September, based on the recorded conversation with Renee Suding.

In December 2009 – past the omnibus date – the state amended the charges by modifying the overt acts, stating Suding “attempted to identify the homes and personal vehicles of the victims and/or agreed on a date to commit the murders and/or traveled to Kentucky to find an appropriate hiding place and to create an alibi.”

In his appeal, Suding argued that charges filed in December 2009 violated his rights by not allowing him adequate time to defend against the charges. But pursuant to Ind. Code Section 35-34-1-5(d), when the court permits an amendment to the charging information, “the court shall, upon motion by the defendant, order any continuance of the proceedings which may be necessary to accord the defendant adequate opportunity to prepare his defense.” If a court overrules a defendant’s objection to a late amendment, a defendant must request a continuance to preserve any argument that he was prejudiced by the late amendment.

Suding’s attorney did not request a continuance, and the issue was waived.

Citing Garcia v. State, 271 Ind. 510, 516, 394 N.E.2d 106, 110 (1979), the appeals court ruled that Renee Suding’s testimony provided sufficient evidence for conviction, because  a unilateral agreement to commit a crime is sufficient to sustain a conviction of conspiracy.

Suding also alleged that he was in grave peril and a victim of prosecutorial misconduct, due to a statement the prosecutor made during the trial about a prior “allegation involving a kid.” The appeals court ruled that the statement in question was inadmissible and did not affect the verdict. The appeals court also ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Suding, who received a sentence of 40 years imprisonment, with five years suspended for each count, to be served concurrently.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT