ILNews

COA affirms murder conviction and sentence over self-defense claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis man who was convicted and sentenced to 85 years in prison for killing a man who threatened his life and the lives of people inside his home lost his appeal Friday.

Billy Russell claimed in his appeal that Marion Superior Court erred by failing to offer the jury his tendered instruction on a claim of self-defense and that the jury had the option of convicting him of voluntary manslaughter. Russell also claimed the court erred because it didn’t completely bifurcate his murder trial from his trial on a charge of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. He was found guilty on all charges and the jury imposed a 55-year murder sentence enhanced by 30 years for a habitual offender finding.

Russell lived in a home he shared with his grandmother, his girlfriend, her child and a female friend who was the ex-girlfriend of Jairme Wilburn. According to court records, Wilburn showed up at Russell’s house after 11 p.m. on Sept. 18, 2010, apparently intoxicated, and Wilburn and his ex-girlfriend argued outside. Wilburn refused to leave after she went back inside the house.

Russell told Wilburn’s ex-girlfriend she needed to handle the situation, and after she went back outside, Wilburn struck her in the face multiple times and threatened to kill her, witnesses said. She went back inside the house but refused to call 911, according to the record.

Some time later, Wilburn entered the house looking for his ex-girlfriend and refused to leave without her. Russell retrieved a handgun from the house and waited outside as Wilburn threatened to return and shoot up the house. He said, “I’ll kill every (expletive) in this house.”

Russell drew his gun while Wilburn was facing away and said, “You’re not going to leave, n-----,” and shot him in the back of the head.

In Billy Russell v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1203-CR-148, a panel of the Court of Appeals found no error or abuse of discretion in the claims Russell raised on appeal. The COA noted the court instruction given to the jury was taken directly from the self-defense statute, repeatedly advising the jury that Russell had to have “reasonably” believed in the danger facing him and in the amount of force used against that danger.

“There’s no indication that Mr. Russell went out from the house just simply to commit a murder,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote for the panel. “However, even if Russell did not premeditate Wilburn’s murder and Wilburn acted provocatively immediately before the shooting, there is considerable evidence of Russell’s poor character.”

The court also cited Hines v. State, 794 N.E.2d 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), in which it found an abuse of discretion for a court to refuse to bifurcate a SVF charge and another felony charge, robbery in the case of Hines.

“We conclude that although the trial court could have completely bifurcated trial of the SVF charge from the murder charge, Hines did not require it so long as no mention was made of Russell’s alleged 'serious violent felon' status or of his criminal history as part of the murder trial,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote for the panel. “The trial court’s partial bifurcation accomplished that goal.”

The court also found that Russell, who was 26 at the time of the murder, had a criminal history beginning with juvenile referrals at age 8 that did not make his sentence inappropriate. “Russell has consistently and for many, many years demonstrated a complete inability to comply with the law, whether he has been free, on probation or community corrections, or even while incarcerated,” Barnes wrote.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT