ILNews

Lake County murder conviction affirmed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Lake Superior trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give an accused murderer’s proposed jury instruction regarding the presumption of innocence, the Indiana Court of Appeals held.

Robert Lawrence Albores Jr. was charged with murder and criminal gang activity for the shooting death of Michael Miranda. The two were in rival street gangs. The state claimed Albores shot Miranda in retaliation for his cousin’s death in 2008; Albores argued he shot Miranda out of fear for his life. The jury was instructed on self-defense and the lesser include offense of reckless homicide. Albores was convicted only of murder.

In Robert Lawrence Albores, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 45A03-1207-CR-327, Albores argued his jury instruction should have been given and that it was based on an identical instruction that was rejected by a trial court in another case, an action later found by the Court of Appeals to be an abuse of discretion.

But the judges must also look at the jury instructions given at Albores’ trial, and they found that the information in the proposed instruction was covered in other instructions. The jury was properly instructed to presume the defendant innocent and demand that the state produce strong and persuasive evidence of guilt wholly at odds with innocence, Chief Judge Margret Robb wrote.

“The rejected instruction was covered in substance by these instructions, and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion,” she wrote.  

 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT