ILNews

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.
 

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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT