ILNews

Self-defense claim of man who killed 2 fails on appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis man’s claim that the state failed to disprove his claim of self defense did not persuade the Indiana Court of Appeals to revisit his two murder convictions and sentence of 115 years in prison.

Razien McCullough was convicted of the December 2010 killings of Lawrence Miles and Miles’ young daughter, Archie, with whom McCullough and the child’s mother shared a home. After an argument in the basement, McCullough obtained a handgun and shot the victims in the head, according to the court record. McCullough concealed the victims’ bodies on a back porch before calling police.

“The only evidence that he acted without fault or that his reactions were reasonable was contained in his statement to police, an audio recording of which was played to the jury. The jury, however, was under no obligation to credit this evidence and did not,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote for the court in an eight-page ruling.

 “In light of the nature of his offenses and his character, McCullough has failed to establish that his 115-year aggregate sentence for two murders is inappropriate,” Bradford wrote in Razien McCullough v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1210-CR-789.

The case on appeal from Marion Superior Judge Mark Stoner relies exclusively on an audio/video record prepared under a pilot project, the court indicated in a footnote. The panel of Bradford and judges James Kirsch and Melissa May will review about 15 cases from Stoner’s court and a like number from courts in Allen County and Tippecanoe County.

 



 

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT