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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT