ILNews

Life sentence upheld for man who killed neighbor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court rejected a man’s claims that certain photos of a murder victim should not have been admitted at his trial. The justices upheld Tyrice Halliburton’s life without parole sentence for the murder of Sheena Kiska.

Police found Kiska dead in her apartment in March 2008. She had been stabbed multiple times and also suffered blunt-force injuries. Halliburton became a suspect after he told police he saw another resident murder Kiska, providing details that would have been impossible from his vantage point. Police also found Kiska’s DVD player in his car that had been taken from her apartment a month before the murder. His girlfriend, Nicole DeFronozo, also revealed that she knew in 2008 that Halliburnton had killed Kiska but remained quiet for more than three years.

The state sought life without parole after alleging Halliburton intentionally killed Kiska while committing or attempting to commit burglary. He was convicted in 2012.

Halliburton appealed, arguing the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs and the testimony of his girlfriend’s mother, and that the trial court’s limiting instruction was erroneous.

Halliburton only objected to the admission of a few of the 27 pre- and post-autopsy photos; his remaining claims on appeal are based on fundamental error. The justices rejected his claims finding the photos did not serve to inflame the emotions of the jury but showed her injuries or how her body was found.

They also found no fundamental error in the introduction of testimony from Cynthia Bollenbaugh, DeFronzo’s mother. She testified that she urged her daughter to tell the truth when she learned of Halliburton’s involvement in the murder. She was not testifying as to whether DeFronzo had testified truthfully, as he claimed, so there was no violation of Ind. Evid. Rule 704(b).  

The justices did agree that the limiting instruction given by the judge regarding DeFronzo’s testimony was given in error.

“Here the instruction did not imply that the trial court had formed an opinion on the credibility of a witness or the weight the jury was to give the witness’ testimony. However, the instruction nonetheless advised the jury that the trial court had made a preliminary determination that the testimony the jury was about to hear is ‘relevant’ and that the trial court had made a preliminary determination that the probative value of such testimony ‘outweighs any prejudice there may be.’ Although appropriate as an evidentiary ruling, the highlighted portion of the limiting instruction should not have been read to the jury in that it had no role in the matter,” Rucker wrote in Tyrice J. Halliburton v. State of Indiana, 20S00-1206-LW-560.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. File under the Sociology of Hoosier Discipline ... “We will be answering the complaint in due course and defending against the commission’s allegations,” said Indianapolis attorney Don Lundberg, who’s representing Hudson in her disciplinary case. FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW ... Lundberg ran the statist attorney disciplinary machinery in Indy for decades, and is now the "go to guy" for those who can afford him .... the ultimate insider for the well-to-do and/or connected who find themselves in the crosshairs. It would appear that this former prosecutor knows how the game is played in Circle City ... and is sacrificing accordingly. See more on that here ... http://www.theindianalawyer.com/supreme-court-reprimands-attorney-for-falsifying-hours-worked/PARAMS/article/43757 Legal sociologists could have a field day here ... I wonder why such things are never studied? Is a sacrifice to the well connected former regulators a de facto bribe? Such questions, if probed, could bring about a more just world, a more equal playing field, less Stalinist governance. All of the things that our preambles tell us to value could be advanced if only sunshine reached into such dark worlds. As a great jurist once wrote: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Other People's Money—and How Bankers Use It (1914). Ah, but I am certifiable, according to the Indiana authorities, according to the ISC it can be read, for believing such trite things and for advancing such unwanted thoughts. As a great albeit fictional and broken resistance leaders once wrote: "I am the dead." Winston Smith Let us all be dead to the idea of maintaining a patently unjust legal order.

  2. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  3. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  4. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  5. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

ADVERTISEMENT