ILNews

Judges uphold convictions for attempted trafficking with an inmate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a defendant’s argument that her Class C felony conviction of attempted trafficking with an inmate violates the proportionality clause of the Indiana Constitution.

In Natalie E. Murrell v. State of Indiana, No. 67A01-1106-CR-251, Natalie Murrell attempted to bring a bag of tobacco and four cell phones into the Putnamville Correctional Facility while visiting an inmate. She was charged with Class C felony attempted trafficking with an inmate for trying to bring in the cell phones; she was charged with the same crime as a Class A misdemeanor for trying to sneak in the tobacco.

At her bench trial, Murrell asserted a defense of duress, saying she was threatened by unknown people to smuggle in the items. She was convicted of the two charges.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the rejection of Murrell’s duress defense, finding that while she was threatened over the telephone to bring in the items, she was also promised she would receive money for medicine in exchange for delivering the contraband. Also, at any time, she could have called the police.

Murrell’s claim that her Class C felony conviction violates the proportionality clause of the state constitution has two aspects. She argued since cell phones aren’t as dangerous as weapons or controlled substances – the other items that also would warrant a Class C felony charge – she claimed it is constitutionally inappropriate to impose the same penalty. She also argued she is being punished more harshly for bringing in a cell phone than an inmate would be for possessing one.

The judges found the presence of a cell phone in prison can undermine discipline and facilitate other misconduct, as well as allowing inmates to direct criminal activity from behind bars. Therefore, the Class C felony conviction is not disproportionate merely because trafficking in cell phones is treated similarly to bringing controlled substances and weapons.

With regards to Murrell’s argument she’s receiving a harsher punishment for trafficking than an inmate would for possessing a cell phone, the judges noted that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an inmate to get a cell phone if a visitor didn’t bring one into the prison.

“Therefore, the legislature could have reasonably decided it is easier to deter contraband by punishing most harshly those who attempt to bring contraband into a prison,” wrote Senior Judge Betty Barteau.

The COA ordered the trial court to resentence her because at a hearing, the trial court said the sentences would be served concurrently, but in the final order, the court ordered Murrell to serve them consecutively. The judges found the concurrent sentence order to be more 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

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT