ILNews

COA upholds convictions in Indianapolis Hamilton Ave. murders

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a man’s convictions and reduced his sentence to 421 years for his involvement in the gruesome robbery and murders of seven Indianapolis residents, including three children, in June 2006.

James Stewart was convicted of seven counts of felony murder, six counts of criminal confinement, robbery, carrying a handgun without a license, burglary, and found to be a habitual offender. Stewart, along with Desmond Turner, went to the home of Emma Valdez and Alberto Covarrubvias Sr. on Hamilton Avenue with the intent to rob the family after believing drugs and money were inside. The couple, their two children and Valdez’s grandson, along with two relatives who showed up during the robberies, were killed.

There were no eyewitnesses who placed him at the crime scene and no physical evidence linked him to the crime. Testimony from four individuals regarding his confessions to being involved in the crime was used to convict him.

In James Stewart v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1001-CR-48, Stewart challenged his convictions of felony murder and robbery for violating double jeopardy principles, the admission of certain photographs and evidence and the exclusion of other testimony under the rules of hearsay, and whether he should have received the protections under the life without parole statute because his 425-year sentence is essentially a life sentence.

The appellate court agreed Stewart couldn’t be convicted of the robbery count and felony murder of one of the victims, and it vacated the robbery conviction and four-year sentence attached to it. In doing so, the majority declined to remand to enter judgment of conviction for the intentional murder conviction that the trial court vacated at sentencing. On this issue, Judge Cale Bradford concurred in result. The judges affirmed Stewart's remaining convictions, finding there was sufficient evidence presented to support them.

Regarding his sentence, the Court of Appeals found it didn’t violate equal protection considerations and wasn’t fundamentally unfair. Stewart wasn’t entitled to the protections found under the LWOP statute because his sentence is an aggregate one based on individual sentences imposed for multiple convictions and his habitual offender adjudication. The LWOP statute authorizes the imposition of a life sentence without parole for a single charge or conviction. Also, Stewart wasn’t denied due process in any fashion in the way he was sentenced, noted Judge James Kirsch.

The trial court didn’t err in excluding two statements implicating “Lucky” as the second shooter. Stewart wanted to have those statements admitted because he was trying to prove the truth of his assertion that Turner’s accomplice was named “Lucky,” not Stewart.

The judges also affirmed the admittance of testimony by a witness regarding the statement by Turner about finding Stewart after the murders to prevent Stewart from blaming Turner for the crimes. These statements were offered to show Turner’s then-existing state of mind.

With regard to crime scene and autopsy photos, the trial court didn’t err in admitting the gruesome photos as evidence. The probative value of the pictures outweighed any potential prejudice, wrote the judge.

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