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. All the lawyers involved in this don't add up to a hill of beans; mostly yes-men punching their tickets for future advancement. REMF types. Window dressing. Who in this mess was a real hero? the whistleblower that let the public know about the torture, whom the US sent to Jail. John Kyriakou. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/ex-officer-for-cia-is-sentenced-in-leak-case.html?_r=0 Now, considering that Torture is Illegal, considering that during Vietnam a soldier was court-martialed and imprisoned for waterboarding, why has the whistleblower gone to jail but none of the torturers have been held to account? It's amazing that Uncle Sam's sunk lower than Vietnam. But that's where we're at. An even more unjust and pointless war conducted in an even more bogus manner. this from npr: "On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier." Today, the US itself has become lawless.

  2. "Brain Damage" alright.... The lunatic is on the grass/ The lunatic is on the grass/ Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs/ Got to keep the loonies on the path.... The lunatic is in the hall/ The lunatics are in my hall/ The paper holds their folded faces to the floor/ And every day the paper boy brings more/ And if the dam breaks open many years too soon/ And if there is no room upon the hill/ And if your head explodes with dark forbodings too/ I'll see you on the dark side of the moon!!!

  3. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  4. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  5. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

ADVERTISEMENT