ILNews

High court upholds life sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court upheld a man's sentence of life in prison, noting the defendant's numerous opportunities to reform, but that he continued to commit crimes.

Jeffrey Treadway appealed his convictions of murder, felony murder, robbery, and battery, and his sentence of life in prison without parole on numerous arguments, including that the trial court erred by not granting his motions for mistrial; in instructing the jury; and that his sentence is inappropriate.

Treadway knocked on the door of the home of an elderly couple for whom he had previously done some handy work. When Donald Carroll answered the door, Treadway attacked him with a brick, which caused his death. When Betty Carroll intervened, Treadway hit her and demanded money. She gave him $200 and he left. When describing the attacker to police, she noted his name was "Jeff" and he had previously done yard work for the couple. Treadway was arrested in Minnesota on an unrelated charge when police realized he was wanted in Indiana.

In Jeffrey Treadway v. State of Indiana, No. 49S00-0803-CR-147, the justices held the trial court didn't err in denying his three motions for mistrial based on hearsay testimony, jury separation, and instruction to the jury to continue deliberating. Under the hearsay testimony motion, Betty's stepson testified about what she had told him about her attacker. The testimony was nearly identical to Betty's testimony, so admitting it wasn't an error. Under the jury separation motion, the juror had been separated for just 20 minutes to express breast milk and no deliberations had occurred while she was gone, so there was no error. On the instruction to the jury motion, the trial court properly called the jury and the parties into open court, polled them, and notified the parties of the court's intent to instruct the jury to continue deliberating before sending the bailiff into the jury room. There was no error on this issue, wrote Justice Robert Rucker.

Treadway argued the trial court erroneously instructed the jury in the guilt and penalty phases of trial. The whole of the jury instruction during the guilt phase doesn't make it appear that the jury should come to a verdict when a verdict can't be reached, as Treadway claimed, wrote the justice. The trial court didn't err in instructing the jury by using the phrases "after you return a verdict" and "when you have agreed upon a verdict."

The trial court also didn't err in instructing the jury on the parole aggravator during the penalty phase or reading an instruction to the jury that included "a sentencing recommendation." Merely referring to the jury's determination as a "recommendation" didn't imply that its recommendation was only a preliminary step to sentencing and didn't suggest that the jury wasn't responsible for the ultimate sentence, the high court held.

The justices also rejected Treadway's argument that his sentence is inappropriate. Bludgeoning an elderly man to death during a robbery is horrific and brutal, and Treadway has an extensive criminal history beginning when he was a juvenile. His criminal conduct over the years has increased in seriousness, and despite being offered numerous opportunities to reform, he continued to pursue criminal activity.

The Supreme Court also affirmed the trial court didn't err in failing to dismiss the state's request for life imprisonment without parole; admitting into evidence the testimony of two inmate witnesses; that there was sufficient evidence; the state proved the existence of statutory aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the trial court's sentencing order is adequate.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT