ILNews

Judges revise murder sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the murder conviction of a defendant who killed a Bloomington man in response to a sexual assault, but found the circumstances around the killing warranted a lesser sentence.

In Michael J. Griffin v. State of Indiana, No. 53A05-1106-CR-288, Michael Griffin challenged his murder conviction and 55-year sentence for the stabbing death of Donald Belton. While at a Christmas party, the two were drinking and Belton allegedly sexually assault Griffin while he was intoxicated. Two days later, Griffin went to Belton’s house to confront him about the encounter and ended up stabbing Belton 21 times and sliced his throat.

Griffin asked the trial court to give a jury instruction on reckless homicide; it refused and only instructed the jury on voluntary manslaughter and murder.

Griffin argued on appeal that the state failed to negate the presence of sudden heat which, if found by the jury, would have reduced his murder conviction to voluntary manslaughter. But the evidence produced by the state negates Griffin’s claim that he was acting in sudden heat when he killed Belton, wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey.

He also argued that the jury could have found that he recklessly killed Belton but did not knowingly do so. The evidence shows that Griffin stabbed Belton 21 times and slashed his throat. He did not attempt to get help for Belton and fled from the scene. The nature of his conduct shows Griffin had to have some awareness his actions could result in Belton’s death, wrote the judge.

The appellate court decided to revise his sentence to 45 years given that the pervasive evidence is that the homicide was in response to a sexual assault, Griffin has no criminal history, and he received an honorable discharge and Purple Heart from the Marine Corps. They sent the case back to the trial court for resentencing.

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT