ILNews

Judges uphold murder conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found the evidence that a defendant committed murder was overwhelming, so any suppression of a witness’s testimony by the prosecution was no more than a harmless error.

In Anthony Dorelle-Moore v. State of Indiana, No. 45A04-1109-CR-482, Anthony Dorelle-Moore claimed the trial court erred in refusing to grant a continuance, mistrial or motion to correct error due to prosecutor misconduct. Dorelle-Moore was charged with the murder of Isaiah Claxton. Claxton came to Dorelle-Moore’s home to buy marijuana. Dorelle-Moore believed that Claxton and two other men robbed his home several hours earlier. While Claxton was at Dorelle-Moore’s home, Dorelle-Moore shot him nine times, killing Claxton.

At trial, it came to light that a gun stolen from the burglary of Dorelle-Moore’s home had been recovered when Willie Lee James was arrested. James allegedly claimed to have gotten the gun from Bernard Hamilton, a man Dorelle-Moore believed also robbed his home. Dorelle-Moore tried to get James to testify, but he claims that the prosecution spoke with James and overtly or implicitly threatened that if he testified for Dorelle-Moore, he would be arrested.

“Here, assuming that the prosecutor’s reference to a warrant for James’s arrest effectively discouraged his testimony, Dorelle-Moore did not identify materially favorable testimony to be obtained from James,” wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey.

Dorelle-Moore shot Clayton with an eyewitness present, and several others saw Dorelle-Moore with a gun just after the shooting. The evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, so the suppression of James’ testimony wasn’t more than a harmless error, the court ruled.

 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT