Appeals court affirms battery conviction of man who murdered his wife

Rebecca Berfanger
January 1, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A man appealed his Class A misdemeanor battery conviction claiming that his wife, who reported to police that her husband hit her and was murdered before the scheduled trial date, was no longer around for him to confront as his accuser and was the only witness to the battery.

In Albert Boyd v. State of Indiana, No. 03A01-0701-CR-1, the three-judge panel affirmed the trial court's conviction.

The battery charges stemmed from a physical altercation that the defendant-appellant's wife, Ruth Boyd, reported against her husband Albert Boyd on April 23, 2005. Albert's trial was scheduled for March 31, 2006, but on Jan. 31, 2006, Ruth was murdered and the trial was postponed. Albert was convicted of his wife's murder on Aug. 9, 2006, in Bartholomew Superior Court.

A bench trial was held on the battery charge on Dec. 12, 2006. Prior to trial, a hearing was conducted regarding the admissibility of Ruth's April 23, 2005, statement. The trial court concluded that in murdering Ruth, Albert forfeited his right to confront her as a witness against him and waived his right to object to the admission of her statement on hearsay grounds.

In the opinion released today written by Court of Appeals Judge Michael Barnes, the appeals court affirms the trial court's decision citing an Indiana Supreme Court case, Wright v. State, which found that "a party may not take advantage of an error that she commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of her own neglect or misconduct"

Judge Barnes wrote, "[Albert] may not take advantage of Ruth's inability to testify, which was the natural consequence of his own misconduct-murdering her."

"We see no reason why a defendant, who by his or her own wrongdoing renders a witness unable to testify, would not forfeit the Sixth Amendment right to confront that witness at trial," Judge Barnes wrote. "To hold otherwise would permit a defendant to benefit from his or her wrongful act, which in this case was murdering the witness."

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.