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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT