ILNews

Justices uphold death sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has upheld the sentence for a man sentenced to die for the 2001 rape and murder of a 15-year-old girl in southern Indiana.

A unanimous 21-page decision came today in Roy Lee Ward v. State, No. 74S00-0707-DP-263, affirming a sentence imposed after the defendant's second trial held before Spencer Circuit Special Judge Robert Pigman.

Ward was convicted for the rape and murder of Stacy Payne in Spencer County in July 2001. He'd pretended to be searching for a lost dog, and convinced the teenager to let him inside her house where raped her on the kitchen floor and then fatally slashed her body and throat with a knife.

The first trial resulted in guilty verdicts for murder, rape, and criminal deviate conduct and a jury recommended the death penalty, but those convictions and the sentence were reversed in 2004 because of pre-trial publicity. On remand, the parties agreed to bring in a jury from Clay County with a special judge holding the trial in his Vanderburgh County courtroom. The defendant pleaded guilty to murder and rape charges and the jury and judge issued a death penalty again.

Ward appealed on arguments that the Indiana death penalty statute is unconstitutional, that the jury wasn't property selected, that evidence from a warrantless search and photo evidence shouldn't have been admitted, and that the death sentence wasn't appropriate.

But justices rejected all of Ward's appellate arguments, including the photo evidence claim on grounds that the photos were gruesome but relevant to the case. Ward's attorneys had also argued that the 120 prospective jurors should have been questioned individually, outside the presence of other potential jurors, so that no one's answers would be overheard or influence another. Attorneys said jurors were ultimately lumped into groups of 10 or 20 and questioned, and they prevented Ward from getting a fair second trial.

"A trial court has broad discretionary power to regulate the form and substance of voir dire," Justice Brent E. Dickson wrote for the court. "Individually sequestered voir dire is not mandated in any case under Indiana law, including capital cases, absent highly unusual or potentially damaging circumstances. ... The defendant has not established reversible error in the trial court's modification of the format for questioning potential jurors in this case."

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard concurred in the decision to affirm, adding that he continues to believe that "there is less justification for appellate alteration of sentence than there was when judges (rather than juries) were the final deciders of sentence."

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT