ILNews

Court affirms man’s conviction of murder, feticide enhancement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a defendant’s claim that the state should have to prove that he knew his estranged wife was pregnant when he killed her in order to seek a sentence enhancement under the Indiana feticide enhancement statute.

Tyler White and Amy Meyer had one son together while married. White was verbally abusive during their relationship, and they filed for divorce. They shared custody of their son, and the day before a provisional custody hearing, White shot Meyer twice, killing her. She was around three months pregnant at the time. The baby did not survive.

The state charged White with murder and sought an enhanced sentence under the feticide enhancement statute. White was found guilty of murder and in the second phase of trial, the jury found the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder caused the death of the baby. He was sentenced to a total of 70 years, which included the 10-year feticide enhancement.

In Tyler A. White v. State of Indiana, 90A04-1111-CR-621, White argued the court erred in finding certain testimony by witnesses as to what Meyer had told them about White admissible under Evidence Rule 804(b)(5), the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” hearsay exception; that the feticide enhancement statute is unconstitutional; and the trial court should have allowed him to enter evidence that Meyer previously had a miscarriage.

“We hold that the preponderance of the evidence supports a determination that White killed Amy to prevent her from testifying at the provisional custody hearing,” Judge Edward Najam wrote, which allows for the hearsay evidence to be admitted. “The fact that the conflict escalated one day before a custody hearing is substantial evidence of White’s intent when he shot Amy.”

The judges found the feticide enhancement statute is not unconstitutional as White argued because it doesn’t require proof that the person committing the murder had knowledge that the victim was pregnant or intended to end the pregnancy.

“Thus, the legislature’s intent on this issue is clear, and the State need not prove a defendant’s mens rea when it seeks a sentencing enhancement for feticide,” Najam wrote.

The appellate court also affirmed that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that Meyer previously suffered a miscarriage.

 

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT