ILNews

Judges affirm 65-year murder sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Nothing about the defendant’s “extremely violent character” merited the Indiana Court of Appeals to reduce his murder sentence, the appellate judges ruled Friday.

James Lee Paul was convicted and sentenced to 65 years for the murder of Charles Burns Jr.

Paul and Richard Wroten went to Burns’ home, where Paul beat the sleeping man in the head with a crowbar as many as 60 times. Paul had a feud with Burns’ father over Paul’s personal property.

After the murder, Paul and Wroten washed themselves up and Paul threatened Wroten not to call the cops. Later that night, Wroten told police about what happened and where they could find Paul. The police did not know which apartment was Paul’s, but saw him through an open apartment door, working on Burns’ bicycle. Police did not have a search warrant when they announced themselves, entered his apartment, and arrested Paul. After securing a search warrant, police confiscated the bicycle and a backpack containing bloody clothes and the murder weapon.

Paul claimed the trial court’s decision to not suppress the evidence violated the Fourth Amendment. The COA found the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence because the police found themselves in a situation where they saw Paul, whom they had probable cause to believe he just committed a vicious murder, while the police where standing on an exposed stairway.

“Not knowing whether Paul had a weapon and could cause them or tenants harm if they tried to retreat down the exposed stairway, the officers made the arrest. Furthermore, at the time the officers observed Paul from the stairs, he appeared to be tampering with Burns’ bicycle, which was a major piece of evidence in the case,” wrote Judge Carr Darden. “We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion as the danger to the officers and tenants, coupled with the tampering of evidence, was an exigent circumstance that made it impracticable for the officers to obtain an arrest warrant before making the arrest.”

The judges declined to revise his sentence, citing Paul’s “gory act” of repeatedly beating Burns’ as he slept.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT