ILNews

Supreme Court upholds life without parole sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has affirmed a man’s murder and robbery convictions and left in place his sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

Jeffery Cain came to Indiana with Matthu Sanders to find work. While in Indiana, they met Sanders’ friend Clinton Daniel Hess. Hess had a longstanding dispute with Raymond Morrow, who owned and operated a flea market. Morrow was later found dead in his flea market and the state charged Cain, Sanders, Hess and Matthew Nelson with murder, intentional murder and robbery while armed with a deadly weapon.

Cain objected to Hess’ testimony at his trial. On appeal, he argues that Hess’ testimony should have been excluded and that the prosecutor made prejudicial statements during her closing argument at the sentencing phase of his trial.

Hess originally refused to testify at Cain’s trial, but the state secured his testimony after the first day of that trial in exchange for a drastically lower charge in his own case. Cain argued that this caused him unfair surprise and deprived him of a fair trial. The justices disagreed, noting that Hess was listed as a witness for the state and that Cain’s lawyer had adequate time to prepare for cross-examination. The trial court was well within its discretion to deny Cain’s motion to exclude Hess’ testimony, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard in Jeffery W. Cain v. State of Indiana, No. 17S00-1008-CR-684.

The high court also looked at the prosecutor’s closing argument in which she mentioned terms-of-years sentences and how they can be reduced based on participation in education and other programs. She said, “Now people that are convicted of murder are pretty much on the bottom of their list to give ’em deals. But they have a lot of power to do that, unless you sentence Jeff Cain to life without parole.”

“Inaccurate as the prosecutor’s portrayal of these programs was, it seems apparent that the level of intentionality in Cain’s conduct (that being the charged aggravator) was very high,” wrote Shepard. “We conclude that this single paragraph in a closing argument that ran to over seven pages of transcript was not fundamental error.”
 

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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT