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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT