• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Felony murder: why a teenager who didn't kill anyone faces 55 years in jail

poledriver

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
11,543
Felony murder: why a teenager who didn't kill anyone faces 55 years in jail

Blake Layman broke into a house unarmed. The homeowner opened fire, injuring him and killing a friend. But Indiana law means he is officially a murderer

490b0b7c-988d-4e35-a963-c3df5e06721e-620x419.jpeg


lake Layman made one very bad decision. He was 16, an unexceptional teenager growing up in a small Indiana town. He’d never been in trouble with the law, had a clean criminal record, had never owned or even held a gun.

That decision sparked a chain of events that would culminate with his arrest and trial for “felony murder”. The boy was unarmed, had pulled no trigger, killed no one. He was himself shot and injured in the incident while his friend standing beside him was also shot and killed. Yet Layman would go on to be found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to 55 years in a maximum-security prison for a shooting that he did not carry out.

How Blake Layman got to be in the Kafkaesque position in which he now finds himself – facing the prospect of spending most of the rest of his life in a prison cell for a murder that he did not commit – is the subject on Thursday of a special hearing of the Indiana supreme court, the state’s highest judicial panel. How the judges respond to the case of what has become known as the “Elkhart Four” could have implications for the application of so-called “felony murder” laws in Indiana and states across the union.

It was about 2pm on 3 October 2012, and Layman was hanging out after school in his home town of Elkhart with a couple of buddies, Jose Quiroz, also 16, and Levi Sparks, 17. They smoked a little weed, got a little high, and had a moan with each other about how broke they were.

Layman looks back on that afternoon and wonders why did he do it? Why did he throw it all away? He was doing well at school, had an evening job at Wendy’s, had a girlfriend he liked, was preparing to take his driving test. “It felt to me like life was really coming together at that point,” he said.

Within minutes, all that promise vaporised in an act of teenaged madness. Someone noticed that the grey pickup truck belonging to Rodney Scott, the guy who lived across the street, wasn’t in its usual parking spot. The homeowner must be at work or away somewhere. The house, by extension, must be empty.

On the spur of the moment, Layman and his teenaged buddies came up with a plan to break into the house, grab a few things to sell and quit before Scott returned. It would be easy, a harm-free ruse to get hold of some spending money.

It all happened so fast. They called a couple of older friends from down the road, Danzele Johnson, 21, and Anthony Sharp, 18, to join them. They knocked as loudly as he could on Scott’s door and when there was no reply – confirmation in their minds that the house was vacant – they broke open the side door. Five minutes out from having had the original idea, four of them were in the house with Sparks keeping lookout outside.

They ran through the kitchen, Layman pocketing a wallet on the kitchen table without stopping to think why it would be left there if the house was empty. They had a look around the spare bedroom and then indicated to each other it was time to leave.

That’s when the shooting started. Layman heard the boom of a gun and scrambled to hide in the bedroom closet. Danzele Johnson fell into the closet beside him. When Layman looked down he saw Johnson’s shirt stained red with blood. Layman crouched down in terror, and noticed that he too had been shot and that blood was streaming down his right leg.

Rodney Scott was not, as the boys had assumed, out of the house. He had been asleep upstairs and when he heard the commotion of the break-in grabbed his handgun. Not knowing that the intruders were unarmed, he let off a couple of rounds that put a bullet through Layman’s leg and hit Johnson in the chest, killing him.

Layman replays those fateful minutes for the Guardian as he sits in a visitor’s room in Wabash Valley correctional facility, a maximum-security prison in the south-west of Indiana where he is serving his sentence. He is dressed in standard-issue khaki and grey, his hair cropped short in classic prison style.

He recalls that a couple of hours after his arrest, he was told by officials at the county jail in Elkhart that he was being charged with “felony murder”. “I was shellshocked,” he told the Guardian. “Felony murder? That’s the first I’d heard of it. How could it be murder when I didn’t kill anyone?”

The charge was not a mistake. At the end of a four-day trial in September 2013 in which they were all judged as adults, Layman, Sharp and Sparks were found guilty of felony murder. (Quiroz pleaded guilty under a plea deal and was given 45 years.) Layman was dispatched to the prison, still aged 17, to begin his 55 years in a lock-up cell.

The legal anomaly at the heart of what has become known in criminal justice circles as the case of the “Elkhart 4” will be the subject on Thursday of a special hearing by the Indiana supreme court, the state’s highest legal panel. The judges have asked lawyers for Layman and for the prosecution to address that specific question: is it consistent with Indiana law that he and his friends who were all unarmed, who fired not a single shot, and who in fact were themselves fired upon, one fatally, by a third party – the homeowner Rodney Scott – could be put away for decades for murder?

The conundrum is not an arcane one. Some 46 states in the union have some form of felony murder rule on their statute books. Of those, 11 states unambiguously allow for individuals who commit a felony that ends in a death to be charged with murder even when they were the victims, rather than the agents, of the killing.

In Indiana the wording of the felony murder law is more nuanced than those of the other 11 states. It says that a “person who kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit … burglary … commits murder, a felony.”

Cont -

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rder-teenager-55-years-jail-indiana?CMP=fb_gu
 
I know it's hardly about drugs except they got baked before hand, but that law that these guys are getting done for is so fucked up.
 
If you get drunk and drive and cause an accident that someone dies in, that is vehicular manslaughter, in my state you get 10 years for that.
This is similar to that in the sense that death would not have happened if the kid hadn't committed a crime (i.e home invasion)

but 55 years is far too excessive.
I don't disagree that he should be tried as an adult tho, 16 is old enough to know you shouldn't break into someone's home...
 
Yeah I am ok with 10 or so years, but 55 yrs is ludicrous.

Our laws are similar, im not sure if it varies too much for drunk driving causing death but this is for dangerous driving causing death -

DANGEROUS DRIVING OCCASIONING DEATH

The maximum penalty for the offence of dangerous driving causing death is 10 years imprisonment. If the offence is aggravated the maximum penalty is 14 years goal.
What court is likely to hear the matter

This matter is strictly indictable and can only be dealt with in the District Court before a judge. (An indictable offence is a serious offence which is usually tried before a judge and jury)
Aggravated dangerous driving causing death

A person is guilty of the offence of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death if the person commits the offence of dangerous driving occasioning death in circumstances of aggravation. A person convicted of an offence under this subsection is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.
 
Well if I was a judge i would call this 2nd degree manslaughter, because it wasn't planned but it was the fault of the kid.
In my state that's pretty much always 10 years, 8 with parole if good behavior.

i don't blame the homeowner for opening fire tho, if someone breaks into your house (especially 3 people) you have every right to defend your castle.
 
Yeah I am ok with 10 or so years, but 55 yrs is ludicrous.

They were kids.. they did a really stupid thing. I don't think he will be breaking into any houses for the rest of his life after his friend was killed and he was shot. I don't think prison time is warranted in this case at all.

With the drunk driving thing.. The person who did the crime caused the death. In this case the person defending thier home caused the death. I feel this is a substantial difference. If the homeowner did not have a weapon or chose not to use it then the killing would not have happened. If the homeowner was not home then the killing would not have happened. Yes, if the crime had not been committed then it would not have happened.. but if the homeowner was not home and the crime went down it would not have resulted in the killing. So is the killing really the result of the crime?
 
They were kids.. they did a really stupid thing. I don't think he will be breaking into any houses for the rest of his life after his friend was killed and he was shot. I don't think prison time is warranted in this case at all.

With the drunk driving thing.. The person who did the crime caused the death. In this case the person defending thier home caused the death. I feel this is a substantial difference. If the homeowner did not have a weapon or chose not to use it then the killing would not have happened. If the homeowner was not home then the killing would not have happened. Yes, if the crime had not been committed then it would not have happened.. but if the homeowner was not home and the crime went down it would not have resulted in the killing. So is the killing really the result of the crime?

I have a few disagreements with this.
1. 16 isn't a "kid", definitely old enough to know better than to carry out a home invasion.
2. Even if nobody had died, he still deserves prison time for breaking and entering, and theft (the wallet).
3. Your drunk driving case argument fails, because the kid did cause the death. It is well established that in Indiana homeowners can defend themselves from home invaders using lethal force. Homeowner was within his rights, and he had no way of knowing the kids were just there to steal things, or that they wouldn't become violent upon seeing that he was home.
4. Those last two sentences are the worst that you wrote- in them you are trying to blame Johnson's death on the homeowner because it was his stupid fault for being home, when he should have been away so the kids could have robbed the place.
lol
so to answer your last question, absolutely.
 
1. 16 isn't a "kid", definitely old enough to know better than to carry out a home invasion.

They certainly knew better, but they did it anyway. Teenagers are not adults and they have a tendency to make very stupid choices. They do not think or behave like adults. This is why we consider people an adult at 18. Have you hung around a group of 16 year olds lately, they certainly dont seem like adults to me. Law prohibits them from smoking, drinking, serving in the military, seeing certain movies, marring in many places, driving in some places. The reason it does this is that many people feel they are not mature enough.

2. Even if nobody had died, he still deserves prison time for breaking and entering, and theft (the wallet).

Putting a child in prison likely won't benefit the child or society. Have you ever been locked up Iso? Instead of punishment why not require them to do something that will benefit them and society. Community service helping people who are victims of crime could be one idea.

because the kid did cause the death.
Prove it.

It is well established that in Indiana homeowners can defend themselves from home invaders using lethal force. Homeowner was within his rights, and he had no way of knowing the kids were just there to steal things, or that they wouldn't become violent upon seeing that he was home.

I have no problem with what the homeowner did. People who break into houses in make my day states should expect to get shot. But they should not be charged with murder when they are.


4. Those last two sentences are the worst that you wrote- in them you are trying to blame Johnson's death on the homeowner because it was his stupid fault for being home, when he should have been away so the kids could have robbed the place.

No Iso what i was trying to say must have flown right over your head.

When a person drives impaired and gets into an accident and kills someone they have committed a crime that directly caused someone to die.

I was pointing out that the act of breaking and entering did not directly cause someone to die. I was merely pointing out other possible outcomes where the crime could have been committed and the killing would not have happened. Also the homeowner still did the killing even if it was justified and legal.
 
Teenagers are not adults and they have a tendency to make very stupid choices. They do not think or behave like adults. This is why we consider people an adult at 18.

Putting a child in prison likely won't benefit the child or society.

Prove it.

No Iso what i was trying to say must have flown right over your head.

When a person drives impaired and gets into an accident and kills someone they have committed a crime that directly caused someone to die.

I was pointing out that the act of breaking and entering did not directly cause someone to die. I was merely pointing out other possible outcomes where the crime could have been committed and the killing would not have happened. Also the homeowner still did the killing even if it was justified and legal.


Okay here's my rebuttal (could we number these while we debate, keep it more linear?)

1. 16 is old enough to know better than to break into someone's home. He made a stupid decision, and it cost his friend his life. Blood has been shed. THERE IS REASON so many minors are tried as adults- by 16 he was well aware what could happen. I read online, this decision to break into a home was NOT made on a whim, they discussed it at length after their school day before doing it, not a "crime of opportunity" they checked several homes before picking one where they (mistakenly) thought nobody was home. He had plenty of time to think it through. and made the decision anyway.

2. Putting the kid in prison isn't going to help him, but actions have consequences. He chose to break into a home, steal some shit, and this is the result. He got unlucky, sure, but he put himself in the position to get unlucky by choice. He should have never been in there.

3. The homeowner wouldn't have shot the kid if they didn't break in. The act DID directly cause the killing. Point is, don't kick in someone's back door (look it up, that's what they did) if you don't wanna risk getting shot. If they had decided to get part-time jobs instead of robbing someone's house none of this would have happened.
 
I was pointing out that the act of breaking and entering did not directly cause someone to die. I was merely pointing out other possible outcomes where the crime could have been committed and the killing would not have happened. Also the homeowner still did the killing even if it was justified and legal.

no crime no death no time - ergo it was the direct cause. but it does seem an extreme response to go down for 55 years
 
I don't think prison time is warranted in this case at all.

So teenagers should just feel free to break into people's houses? I have no beef with you but that's the weakest thing I've read in a while. I pretty agree with Iso on this one. He should go to prison but not for 55 years.
 
no crime no death no time - ergo it was the direct cause. but it does seem an extreme response to go down for 55 years

Crime, no shot, no death.. so its not the direct cause.

So teenagers should just feel free to break into people's houses? I have no beef with you but that's the weakest thing I've read in a while

You sure made on wild jump to an erroneous conclusion here nutty.
 
Not to mention that it will cost the state millions to keep this kid locked up for life...
 
Not to mention that it will cost the state millions to keep this kid locked up for life...

I don't think anyone on this thread agrees that the kid deserves 55-life. So your point is moot.

I don't rehabilitation is a fit for this one either, he broke into someones house by kicking in the back door and stole a wallet, and i'm sure that wallet wasn't the only thing he planned to steal...
As i said earlier, the decision he made wasn't on a whim. He thought it through because he wanted money and was too lazy to work. Sometimes punishment teaches more lessons than "rehabilitation".
And honestly if he got no prison time, I think, if anything, he would learn the false lesson that crime doesn't have consequences. If he did this shit and didn't go to prison, IMO that's him getting away with it. If anything breeds a future criminal, that would.
 
@T2I

I usually agree with you. My point is that this country has a major problem with incarceration. The highest rate of incarceration of any country on earth.

Often times, these consequences have a natural way of coming back to haunt the perpetrator without inhumane punishment.

Prison should be saved for the violent, the vile, the predators, and not kids that make mistakes.

These sentences have flaws.

1. Part of the reason the US incarceration rate is so high is for drug crimes. People who break into houses and steal shit, that IS a good reason to incarcerate someone.

2. I don't trust the world to "come back and haunt the perpetrator" on its own. I don't believe in karma. This kid needs punishment, and by letting him off with a rehabilitation program, that ain't gonna happen.

3. Burglars deserve to be in prison as much as any of those criminals you named. Not for as long a sentence, but making the argument that burglary doesn't warrant incarceration is ridiculous, there is no faster way to increase break-ins in this country than decriminalizing them

and yeah he made a mistake. A mistake he willingly chose to make. If the homeowner wasn't home, all of his valuables would been gone when he did get home. Letting the kid off with rehabilitation and no prison time would be a slap in the face to said homeowner.
 
They were kids.. they did a really stupid thing. I don't think he will be breaking into any houses for the rest of his life after his friend was killed and he was shot. I don't think prison time is warranted in this case at all.

With the drunk driving thing.. The person who did the crime caused the death. In this case the person defending thier home caused the death. I feel this is a substantial difference. If the homeowner did not have a weapon or chose not to use it then the killing would not have happened. If the homeowner was not home then the killing would not have happened. Yes, if the crime had not been committed then it would not have happened.. but if the homeowner was not home and the crime went down it would not have resulted in the killing. So is the killing really the result of the crime?

I was talking about drink driving causing death. In this instance I dont think Jail time is warranted, but I certainly do not agree with shooting some unarmed kids before even checking. I'd hold the home owner semi responsible for the death.

I do not agree with shooting people dead who break into your house. I am totally against that. Maybe if they are armed and you really fear for your life, otherwise a baseball bat or knife should be enough to warn them off, if they come at you then go for it. If they leave great, call the cops and no one dies.
 
What erroneous conclusion? I just quoted what you said.

There are many other punishments and treatments fitting for a teenager that will deter them. But in reality if the chance of getting shot dead does not dissuade them i'm not sure how much the threat of a prison sentence does. Teen agers often do not think like adults. They think they're invincible and are not very good at making decisions based of possible real life consequences.
 
Top