The Elkhart Four - Misuse of the Felony Murder Statute?

The Elkhart Four.

In October 2012 in Indiana, friends Blake Layman, 16, Levi Sparks, 17, Anthony Sharp, 18, Jose Quiroz, 16 and 21-year old Danzele Johnson made a decision that would change their lives forever. At a loose end, the friends decided they would rob a house. After knocking on several doors in a bid to find an empty home, they found one they believed to be vacant. As the five entered the home they awoke the sleeping home owner, Rodney Scott, who jumped from his bed and grabbed his gun. Several shots were fired and sadly, Danzele Johnson was killed instantly and Blake Layman was injured. The four surviving teens were arrested and the decision was made to charge them as adults. Elkhart County prosecutor Curtis Hill also decided to charge the four boys with felony murder. This was despite the fact the teens did not kill anyone and had entered the home unarmed. 

The Indiana felony murder rule states that if a person dies during the performance of a felony, every person involved in that felony will be held responsible for first-degree murder. During the boys' trials the prosecutor was not required to prove there was an intention to commit murder, just the intention to commit the original crime - which in this case would of been the burglary. Although Jose Quiroz was originally offered a plea deal, this was revoked at the last minute and the judge sentenced him to 45 years in prison. Levi Sparks received 50 years - Anthony Sharp and Blake Layman each received 55 years. 

In my opinion, this is a case where the Felony Murder Rule has been abused. Neither of these boys killed Danzele Johnson, Rodney Scott did and he was not committing a felony. Also is it fair to try these boys as adults? The Felony Murder Rule assumes that when a person partakes in a felony, they understand the potential far-reaching consequences of their actions and accept someone could be killed. Is it fair to assume these teenage boys, who are still developing mentally and emotionally, could assess the potential risks associated with breaking into a person's home as well as an adult could? Teenagers and even young adults are still developing decision making skills and common sense. These boys were much more likely to have been focused on the short term gain associated with burglary, rather than considering any far-reaching negative consequences - because they are teenagers. It is not fair to assume that when these boys broke into Mr Scott's home, they were fully aware they would be responsible for any resulting death - especially that of an accomplice, their friend. 

I am not for one minute insinuating the Elkhart Four are completely innocent. They are most definitely guilty of burglary and therefore should be charged with their own individual actions relating to this offence as well as reduced culpability. As teenagers or young adolescents, their potential for rehabilitation should have also been considered. Handing down virtual life sentences for burglary and a murder none of the boys committed with their own hand is not simply not fair. 

There is also variability of the Felony Murder Statue among the states that choose to use and apply it. For example, had this crime taken place in New York, New Jersey, Maine, Oregon, Colorado or Washington, the defendants' ages and fact they were not armed and did not plan to commit a potential fatal deed would have been presented as a defence. Surely, at the very least, all States that have the felony murder Statute should follow the same procedure and all States should consider exempting juveniles from the Statute. 

There is no question that Danzele Johnson's death was an intervening event that none of the boys saw happening when they broke into that (apparently) empty house that day. None of the adolescents actually killed Johnson, so how is it fair that they are looking at spending most of their lives in prison?

                                 
                                 An Episode of Dr Phil Covering the Elkhart Four Case
                               

Ryan Holle - Life in Prison for Lending his Car to a Friend!

Ryan Holle

On March 10th 2003, Ryan Holle loaned his car to his room mate and friend, William Allen, Jr. Allen then used the vehicle to pick up three men and drove them to the address of a known drug dealer. Where the group planned to steal drugs. Once they had broken in, the men emptied a safe of around $400 and a pound of marijuana. Unfortunately, they were interrupted by the home owner's teenage daughter and, in an effort to silence her, used a rifle from the house to bludgeon her to death. The killer, Charles Miller, Jr and the other men were soon arrested, a then twenty-year old Ryan Holle was also arrested alongside them. Because Florida adopt the Felony Murder Rule, Holle was deemed an accomplice for the loaning of his car and was therefore seen just as culpable for the young girl's death. Facing a first-degree murder charge, Ryan Holle was offered a plea deal, a ten year sentence in return for his testimony on the other men. Adamant that he was innocent of the charge, Holle refused the deal and his case went to trial. 

 When Holle's trial began in 2004,  the prosecutor started by hinting that during initial police questioning Holle gave the impression he knew exactly what the men planned to do that night. The prosecutor also went as far as saying that Holle was actually the mastermind behind the whole robbery and that he had been more than aware that 'knocking someone out' was a probability. He went on to state that Ryan Holle should be found guilty of first-degree murder because 'No Car, No Crime'.  Holle testified to the contrary, saying William Allen Jr had asked him to lend his car to go get food. Ryan Holle explained that he and others had enjoyed a long night of partying and he had no qualms in lending Allen the car, as it was something he had done in the past. He insisted that he had known nothing of the robbery until after the act and even then he had thought the men were joking around. Holle's version of events was also backed up by Allen, Jr himself. The entire trial, including prosecution/defence/witness testimony, jury deliberations, verdict and sentencing, lasted just one day. Ryan Holle was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Despite prosecutors at first seeking the death penalty, Charles Miller Jr also received life without parole, as did the other three men involved. 

I have to admit Ryan Holle's conviction and sentence do not sit well with me at all. If accountability for a murder is being pushed back to the owner of the vehicle used, then isn't the home owner who had drugs in her house just as accountable? She created an unsafe environment for her family by knowingly having (and allegedly selling) marijuana under her roof. Instead, the home owner, and victim's mother, was sentenced to just three years in prison for possession. Why did the prosecution believe Ryan Holle was aware of the potential consequences when he lent his car to William Allen, Jr and the person who had drugs in their home wasn't? After all, following the prosecutor's twisted logic, shouldn't it be "No Marijuana, No Crime"?. In my eyes, Ryan Holle has been convicted of what he may have allegedly been thinking. 

I feel it is also important to note that Ryan Holle did not have a prior criminal record, unlike the other four men who were convicted. So how did the prosecution come to the conclusion that someone who has never been convicted of a criminal act in the past could be the mastermind behind a robbery? Especially when the others involved had all spent time in jail at some point. How did any jury find the alleged evidence against Holle enough to find him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course, the prosecution are quick to point out that, on the evidence presented, twelve unbiased jury members found Ryan Holle guilty. However, when I consider that both Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson were found not guilty of murder by twelve unbiased jury members, this point bears no weight with me. Ryan Holle may have exercised poor judgement and naivety, but neither of these are against the law. 

In December 2014, four cabinet members decided to 'take advisment' in Ryan Holle's clemency hearing. This means, he is still waiting for a decision. If the clemency hearing is dismissed and any further appeals fail, Ryan Holle will die in prison for a crime that was committed while he was asleep in bed two miles away. Where is the justice in that? 

What do you think about the Ryan Holle case? Do you think the conviction and sentence were deserved or, like me, do you think he shouldn't have been convicted at all?

Ryan Holle continues to protest he knew
nothing about the robbery.

If you believe Ryan Holle should be granted clemancy, you can sign his Change.org petition at the following link - https://www.change.org/p/florida-commission-on-offender-review-governor-rick-scott-grant-clemency-for-ryan-holle-who-was-sentenced-to-life-for-loaning-his-car

To keep up-to-date with the Holle case, check out the Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/justiceforryanholle