ILNews

Life sentence upheld for man who killed neighbor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court rejected a man’s claims that certain photos of a murder victim should not have been admitted at his trial. The justices upheld Tyrice Halliburton’s life without parole sentence for the murder of Sheena Kiska.

Police found Kiska dead in her apartment in March 2008. She had been stabbed multiple times and also suffered blunt-force injuries. Halliburton became a suspect after he told police he saw another resident murder Kiska, providing details that would have been impossible from his vantage point. Police also found Kiska’s DVD player in his car that had been taken from her apartment a month before the murder. His girlfriend, Nicole DeFronozo, also revealed that she knew in 2008 that Halliburnton had killed Kiska but remained quiet for more than three years.

The state sought life without parole after alleging Halliburton intentionally killed Kiska while committing or attempting to commit burglary. He was convicted in 2012.

Halliburton appealed, arguing the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs and the testimony of his girlfriend’s mother, and that the trial court’s limiting instruction was erroneous.

Halliburton only objected to the admission of a few of the 27 pre- and post-autopsy photos; his remaining claims on appeal are based on fundamental error. The justices rejected his claims finding the photos did not serve to inflame the emotions of the jury but showed her injuries or how her body was found.

They also found no fundamental error in the introduction of testimony from Cynthia Bollenbaugh, DeFronzo’s mother. She testified that she urged her daughter to tell the truth when she learned of Halliburton’s involvement in the murder. She was not testifying as to whether DeFronzo had testified truthfully, as he claimed, so there was no violation of Ind. Evid. Rule 704(b).  

The justices did agree that the limiting instruction given by the judge regarding DeFronzo’s testimony was given in error.

“Here the instruction did not imply that the trial court had formed an opinion on the credibility of a witness or the weight the jury was to give the witness’ testimony. However, the instruction nonetheless advised the jury that the trial court had made a preliminary determination that the testimony the jury was about to hear is ‘relevant’ and that the trial court had made a preliminary determination that the probative value of such testimony ‘outweighs any prejudice there may be.’ Although appropriate as an evidentiary ruling, the highlighted portion of the limiting instruction should not have been read to the jury in that it had no role in the matter,” Rucker wrote in Tyrice J. Halliburton v. State of Indiana, 20S00-1206-LW-560.

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. 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/).

  2. 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/

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

  4. 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

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT