ILNews

High court rules man could be retried

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t prevent the state from retrying a man who was acquitted by a jury in the murder of one person, but in which the jury couldn’t return a verdict on the defendant's attempted murder charge of another man, the Indiana Supreme Court held Wednesday.

In Tyrus D. Coleman v. State of Indiana, No. 20S03-1008-CR-458, Tyrus Coleman was charged with the murder of Jermaine Jackson and the attempted murder of Jackson’s father, Anthony Dye. Jackson and Dye showed up at Coleman’s property, both armed, to confront a man who had robbed Dye at gunpoint months earlier. Coleman tried to talk Jackson into leaving. Coleman ended up shooting Dye twice and then shot Jackson, who died from his injuries.

Coleman claimed he acted in self defense. He was acquitted in the murder of Jackson but the jury wasn’t able to reach a verdict in his attempted murder charge relating to Dye. He was retried, over Coleman’s motion to dismiss claiming Double Jeopardy violations, and found guilty. The trial court sentenced him to 45 years.

The Indiana Court of Appeals split in reversing Coleman’s attempted murder conviction on grounds of collateral estoppel, but the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Coleman could be retried. They rejected Coleman’s argument that because of the brief interval between the two shootings, that was a single transaction and his general fear of death or bodily harm applied equally to Dye and his son.

At his first trial, Coleman’s attorney specifically addressed the separate shootings and argued each was justified by Coleman’s fear of death or injury from Dye and then Jackson, wrote Justice Robert Rucker. He also noted that the acquittal relating to Jackson’s murder, even if based on self defense, did not amount to the jury determining that Coleman acted in self defense with respect to the attempted murder of Dye.

“Thus, in retrying Coleman the State did not relitigate an issue that was necessarily decided by the jury in the first trial. Instead, the jury was asked to make the determination of whether Coleman acted in self-defense when he shot Dye. This issue was not decided during the first trial. Thus, collateral estoppel did not bar relitigation,” he wrote.

The justices also determined there was no misconduct when the prosecutor didn’t point out an inconsistency in Dye’s testimony between the first and second trials.

Coleman also wanted certain statements admitted regarding words Dye used when he came to Coleman’s property. The trial court sustained the state’s hearsay objection, which was an error, but it was harmless because the evidence was excludable on the grounds of relevance, wrote Justice Rucker.

The high court also found the trial court didn’t err in excluding statements attributable to Jackson because there was nothing contained in those statements suggesting they placed Coleman in fear of Dye, as Coleman argued. The trial court didn’t err in not allowing Coleman to introduce evidence of his acquittal and the justices also concluded that his sentence is appropriate.

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT