ILNews

Justices split on decision to allow a third try for death penalty

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
 A split decision by the Indiana Supreme Court today allows the state to seek the death penalty a third time against a man convicted of shooting a Gary police officer in a robbery gone bad in 1981.

The 3-2 decision came late this afternoon with Justices Theodore Boehm and Robert Rucker dissenting in separate opinions. Justice Frank Sullivan authorized the majority's 22-page opinion. The ruling in State of Indiana v. Zolo Agona Azania, No. 02S03-0508-PD-364 (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05100701fsj.pdf), reverses a trial court decision and orders a new penalty phase.

In 2005, Allen Superior Judge Steve David barred prosecutors from seeking the death penalty for a third time because of the lapse of time and ensuing issues that involve speedy trials, due process, and fundamental fairness arguments.

Azania was first convicted in 1982 of murder for a robbery of the Gary National Bank the year before, which resulted in the shooting death of Lt. George Yaros. Azania and two others were trying to flee the bank - they both received 60-year sentences; Azania's penalty hasn't been that clear-cut. The Indiana Supreme Court has twice overturned his death sentence, although the conviction has withstood the test of time.

During arguments in June, this ruling's author, Justice Sullivan, wondered out load if there was some point in time where it's not fair to go through the penalty phase where death is on the line. Challenges presented in this appeal include old evidence, the death of key witnesses on both sides, and how Azania's mitigation witnesses are no longer alive to testify in person.

In his opinion, Justice Sullivan wrote, "We find that neither the delay nor any prejudice that Azania may suffer from it violates his constitutional rights. The State may continue to seek the death penalty."

However, the dissenting justices pointed out how novel these arguments are and that justices on the Supreme Court of the United States have invited state and lower court judges to consider whether the passage of time alone is sufficient to question execution.

"I recognize that the (SCOTUS) has yet to entertain a Lacky claim despite invitations from Justices Stevens and Breyer to do so," Justice Boehm wrote, referring to Lacky v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995). "I therefore cannot conclude that such a claim is established under the Federal Constitution. I do, however, find the reasoning ... to be persuasive and therefore would hold that the Indiana Constitution prevents further pursuit of the death penalty in this case."
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 work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT