ILNews

Appeals court affirms murder convictions

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a man's convictions of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and the finding that he is a habitual offender.

In Charles D. Boney v. State of Indiana, No. 22A01-0607-CR-310, Boney was connected to the murder of Kim Camm and her two children at home by her husband, David. Boney provided the weapon David used to murder his family and was at the Camm's home when the murder occurred.

Boney raised several issues on appeal following his jury trial and convictions. He argued his convictions should be reversed because the trial court erred in letting the state exercise a peremptory challenge on a prospective juror who was African-American; specific pretrial statements Boney gave to police officers were improperly admitted into evidence; the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for mistrial because of comments made by witnesses regarding Boney's previous incarceration; the trial court erred in refusing to give his proffered instruction on accomplice liability; and the trial court should have granted his motion to correct error based on juror conduct.

The appellate court found no reversible errors and affirmed the trial court's decision.

The reason the African-American prospective juror was excused was based on his responses to the juror questionnaire, not because of his race, so the denial of Boney's Baston challenge by the trial court was not an error, the court found.

Statements Boney had made to police without receiving a Miranda warning were admissible in court because he had made similar statements to another police officer he spoke to earlier that day in which he was advised of his Miranda rights. He also signed a waiver of the right to counsel.

In regards to the trial court denying Boney's motion for a mistrial, the trial court instructed the jury to disregard statements made about Boney's prior incarceration and struck a witness from the trial in order to prevent any harm that may have resulted from the testimony. Any error that may have occurred as a result of the admission of the statements or testimony stricken from the record was harmless, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

The final jury instruction given by the trial court sufficiently informed the jury about the requirement of finding affirmative action on the part of the defendant before he can be convicted as an accomplice, so Boney's instructions for the jury did not need to be given.

Finally, Boney contended he is entitled to a new trial because of alleged juror misconduct. However, the juror Boney pointed to was excused prior to deliberations and the 11 remaining jurors signed affidavits stating that juror did not influence them nor did he ever make any racist or prejudiced statements regarding Boney. Because the juror did not participate in the deliberations nor influence the other jurors, Boney's argument fails, wrote Chief Judge Baker.
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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT