ILNews

Court: evidence doesn't support sentence

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court threw out a life-without-parole sentence for felony murder because there wasn't proof the killing was "intentional," as state law requires for that penalty.

In Hobert Alan Pittman v. State of Indiana, No. 31S00-0610-CR-355, Hobert Alan Pittman appealed his convictions and sentence of two consecutive life sentences for murdering his father and stepgrandmother, as well as a 73-year sentence for convictions of attempted murder, theft, auto theft, and conspiracy to commit burglary.

Pittman's stepmother, Linda, and stepgrandmother, Myrtle, were returning home and saw Pittman and John Michael Naylor come out of the garage and start shooting at the van his stepmother and stepgrandmother were in. He then got into Linda's Ford Explorer, drove past the van, stopped, and fired more shots into the van. Myrtle died from gunshot wounds and Linda was injured. Later, police found Pittman's father under a tarp in the garage dead from a gunshot wound to the head.

Pittman was charged with two counts of felony murder because his father and stepgrandmother were killed in the course of a burglary. The jury recommended two sentences of life imprisonment without parole, and the trial court also sentenced him to 73 years on the other related convictions.

But the state couldn't support the life-without-parole sentence for the felony murder of Pittman's father, the justices determined. Because Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-9(b)(1) permits a sentence of life without parole only if the defendant has committed a murder by "intentionally" killing someone while committing another crime, the state has to prove the defendant was a major participant and the killing was intentional in order to impose a sentence of life without parole under Subsection (b)(1), Justice Theodore Boehm wrote.

Attempting to support that sentence, the state listed three aggravating factors listed in Indiana Code 35-50-2-(b): that he committed the murders by intentionally killing while committing or attempting to commit burglary; committed the murders lying in wait; and committed the murders while on probation after receiving a sentence for a commission of a felony.

There isn't any evidence Pittman killed his father, Justice Boehm wrote. Both Pittman and Naylor were on the scene, but there is no evidence as to who shot the man. While felony murder can be charged against someone who didn't intentionally or recklessly kill the victim, or may not have even been the killer at all, Pittman can't receive life without parole because that sentence requires proof he intentionally killed his father. As such, the high court set aside Pittman's life-without-parole sentence for felony murder of his father and revised his sentence for the felony murder to a 65-year term to be served consecutively with his other sentences.

The court also ruled on various other aspects of Pittman's appeal, such as the adequacy of the trial court's sentencing order, a motion for mistrial based on trial testimony, and admission of photographic evidence.
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. Residents can't vote under our current system? Okay, let's replace the system with another system where they can't vote. Yeah, that's the ticket!

  2. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  3. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  4. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  5. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

ADVERTISEMENT