COA upholds convictions of man who planned to kill attorney, judge, ex-wife

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has denied an appeal from a man who was convicted of planning to kill his ex-wife, her attorney, and a judge, ruling that amended charges did not negatively impact his rights and sufficient evidence existed to uphold the conviction.

In Nicholas Suding v. State of Indiana, No. 32A01-1002-CR-156, Nicholas Suding was convicted of three counts of conspiracy to commit murder as Class A felonies. In his appeal, Suding claimed that amendments filed after the omnibus date in October 2009 negatively affected his ability to defend against the amended charges.

At a hearing in June 2009, Suding’s ex-wife, Tamara Scott, and their daughter, S.S., were granted a protective order against Suding. Following that hearing, Suding’s wife, Renee, said he talked about killing Scott, her attorney, and the judge who entered the protective order.

After Suding told his wife to follow the judge and attorney to find out where they lived, she reported her husband to police, who gave her a recording device. She recorded a conversation with Suding in which he described how he would blow up the judge’s house with propane, and how he would kill his other victims. Police then arrested Suding.

Originally charged in July 2009 with one count of conspiracy to commit murder, Suding was charged with five additional counts in September, based on the recorded conversation with Renee Suding.

In December 2009 – past the omnibus date – the state amended the charges by modifying the overt acts, stating Suding “attempted to identify the homes and personal vehicles of the victims and/or agreed on a date to commit the murders and/or traveled to Kentucky to find an appropriate hiding place and to create an alibi.”

In his appeal, Suding argued that charges filed in December 2009 violated his rights by not allowing him adequate time to defend against the charges. But pursuant to Ind. Code Section 35-34-1-5(d), when the court permits an amendment to the charging information, “the court shall, upon motion by the defendant, order any continuance of the proceedings which may be necessary to accord the defendant adequate opportunity to prepare his defense.” If a court overrules a defendant’s objection to a late amendment, a defendant must request a continuance to preserve any argument that he was prejudiced by the late amendment.

Suding’s attorney did not request a continuance, and the issue was waived.

Citing Garcia v. State, 271 Ind. 510, 516, 394 N.E.2d 106, 110 (1979), the appeals court ruled that Renee Suding’s testimony provided sufficient evidence for conviction, because  a unilateral agreement to commit a crime is sufficient to sustain a conviction of conspiracy.

Suding also alleged that he was in grave peril and a victim of prosecutorial misconduct, due to a statement the prosecutor made during the trial about a prior “allegation involving a kid.” The appeals court ruled that the statement in question was inadmissible and did not affect the verdict. The appeals court also ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Suding, who received a sentence of 40 years imprisonment, with five years suspended for each count, to be served concurrently.


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

  2. 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?

  3. 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"

  4. 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?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?