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.


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. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?