ILNews

High court upholds life sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court upheld a man's sentence of life in prison, noting the defendant's numerous opportunities to reform, but that he continued to commit crimes.

Jeffrey Treadway appealed his convictions of murder, felony murder, robbery, and battery, and his sentence of life in prison without parole on numerous arguments, including that the trial court erred by not granting his motions for mistrial; in instructing the jury; and that his sentence is inappropriate.

Treadway knocked on the door of the home of an elderly couple for whom he had previously done some handy work. When Donald Carroll answered the door, Treadway attacked him with a brick, which caused his death. When Betty Carroll intervened, Treadway hit her and demanded money. She gave him $200 and he left. When describing the attacker to police, she noted his name was "Jeff" and he had previously done yard work for the couple. Treadway was arrested in Minnesota on an unrelated charge when police realized he was wanted in Indiana.

In Jeffrey Treadway v. State of Indiana, No. 49S00-0803-CR-147, the justices held the trial court didn't err in denying his three motions for mistrial based on hearsay testimony, jury separation, and instruction to the jury to continue deliberating. Under the hearsay testimony motion, Betty's stepson testified about what she had told him about her attacker. The testimony was nearly identical to Betty's testimony, so admitting it wasn't an error. Under the jury separation motion, the juror had been separated for just 20 minutes to express breast milk and no deliberations had occurred while she was gone, so there was no error. On the instruction to the jury motion, the trial court properly called the jury and the parties into open court, polled them, and notified the parties of the court's intent to instruct the jury to continue deliberating before sending the bailiff into the jury room. There was no error on this issue, wrote Justice Robert Rucker.

Treadway argued the trial court erroneously instructed the jury in the guilt and penalty phases of trial. The whole of the jury instruction during the guilt phase doesn't make it appear that the jury should come to a verdict when a verdict can't be reached, as Treadway claimed, wrote the justice. The trial court didn't err in instructing the jury by using the phrases "after you return a verdict" and "when you have agreed upon a verdict."

The trial court also didn't err in instructing the jury on the parole aggravator during the penalty phase or reading an instruction to the jury that included "a sentencing recommendation." Merely referring to the jury's determination as a "recommendation" didn't imply that its recommendation was only a preliminary step to sentencing and didn't suggest that the jury wasn't responsible for the ultimate sentence, the high court held.

The justices also rejected Treadway's argument that his sentence is inappropriate. Bludgeoning an elderly man to death during a robbery is horrific and brutal, and Treadway has an extensive criminal history beginning when he was a juvenile. His criminal conduct over the years has increased in seriousness, and despite being offered numerous opportunities to reform, he continued to pursue criminal activity.

The Supreme Court also affirmed the trial court didn't err in failing to dismiss the state's request for life imprisonment without parole; admitting into evidence the testimony of two inmate witnesses; that there was sufficient evidence; the state proved the existence of statutory aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the trial court's sentencing order is adequate.

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT