Justices reduce caregiver’s sentence in child’s killing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court reduced the sentence of a woman who, along with her boyfriend, was convicted in the events that led to the murder of the woman’s 2-year-old cousin while in her care.

The court ruled in a 4-1 opinion that Engelica Castillo’s sentence for murder should be reduced to 65 years in prison. Castillo challenged the appropriateness of her sentence and also raised the argument of prosecutorial misconduct.

Castillo and her then-boyfriend, Timothy J. Tkachik, were charged in June 2009 with murder, neglect of a dependent, battery and false informing after the body of Jada Justice, 2, was found in a swampy body of water near LaPorte.

About a year later, Tkachik pleaded guilty to a Class A felony neglect charge and agreed to testify against Castillo in exchange for a sentence of no more than 50 years in prison.

Both Tkachik and Castillo admitted beating Jada before a planned trip to Chicago to buy heroin, according to court records. On the way, the boyfriend found the baby leaning down in her car seat, not breathing. Efforts to revive the baby with CPR failed, and the baby was covered with a tarp as the two set off again toward Chicago.

Both said the baby was dead when they returned later that night.

The justices said that to be convicted of murder as a principal, a defendant must knowingly or intentionally kill another. “These facts do not support a conviction of the defendant for murder as a principal but only as an accomplice,” Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote, noting that Tkachik might have been as likely to have been responsible for the fatal injuries.

“Notwithstanding the defendant's terrible treatment of the child, none of her actions were causally linked to either cause of death offered to explain the victim’s death at trial,” Dickson wrote in an opinion in which Justice Frank Sullivan concurred. Justice Robert Rucker concurred in the result, and Justice Steven David concurred in a separate opinion.

David said he believed evidence was sufficient to prove to a jury that Castillo knowingly killed the victim, but he didn’t object to revising the sentence due to Castillo’s difficult upbringing, Tkachi’s involvement, and terms of his plea agreement and prosecutorial misconduct.

The justices found the prosecutor “actually told the jury not to compare the mitigating and aggravating factors. … Telling the jury not to balance the aggravators and the mitigators touched on the central task of the jury in deciding whether to impose life without parole.” Dickson wrote.

Prosecutorial misconduct occurred, the justices concluded, but it did not result in an adjustment of sentence because the sentence was adjusted based on the appropriateness argument.  

Justice Mark Massa dissented. He held that there was evidence for a jury to conclude that Castillo was a principal actor, and that the prosecutorial misconduct did not constitute fundamental error.

“Even taking the majority’s view of culpability, I still believe a sentence of life without parole is not inappropriate on these facts,” Massa wrote.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues