ILNews

Accomplice’s murder conviction upheld

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman who threatened that her baby’s father and his brother would kill the man who punched her several times had her conviction of murder upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals. She sat in a car while with the boyfriend and his brother killed the man.  

Brittney Watson got into a physical fight with Cornelius Miller in November 2010 after she called him a “rapist” because of his alleged Internet posting of nude photos of Watson’s friend. Watson then got into a fight with Miller’s girlfriend. Witnesses heard Watson make threats that “somebody is going to die” and that she would have her brothers come down and kill someone.

Watson called her baby’s father, Steven Rice, and his brother Stephon Rice to say she had been beaten. They, along with several other people, went to Miller’s house, where Steven and Stephon shot Miller and killed him. Watson remained in the car when the shooting happened and then fled the scene.

She was charged with Miller’s murder; the state’s theory was that she acted as an accomplice. She was convicted and sentenced to 50 years in prison, with five years suspended to probation.

An accomplice can be found guilty of murder if she knew or intended that the victim would be killed by a principal. The judges in Brittney Watson v. State of Indiana, 71A03-1303-CR-91, found probative evidence supports Watson’s conviction. She told the mother of Miller’s children that she was going to have her brothers come back and kill Miller. She told a friend that the Rices were bringing guns with them. Watson didn’t oppose the plan to kill Miller and actually spoke up to stop Stephon Miller from shooting the wrong person.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT