Blake Layman & Levi Sparks v. State of Indiana
2015 WL 5474389, 42 N.E.3d 972 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Indiana's felony murder statute, a defendant is not criminally liable for the death of a co-perpetrator killed by a non-participant unless the defendant and their cohorts engaged in dangerously violent and threatening conduct that was the mediate or immediate cause of the death.
Facts:
- On October 3, 2012, Blake Layman (16), Levi Sparks (17), and Jose Quiroz (16) planned to commit a burglary in their neighborhood.
- The trio recruited Anthony Sharp (18) and Danzele Johnson (21) to assist them.
- The group targeted the home of Rodney Scott, believing no one was home.
- Sparks served as a lookout while Layman, Johnson, Sharp, and Quiroz, all of whom were unarmed, broke into Scott's house by kicking in the back door.
- Scott, who was asleep upstairs, was awakened by the noise, grabbed his handgun, and went downstairs to confront the intruders.
- When Scott reached the bottom of the stairs, he saw the intruders and began firing his weapon.
- Danzele Johnson was shot and killed by Scott, and Blake Layman was shot and wounded in the leg.
- Scott's wallet and watch were later recovered from the closet where the intruders had been hiding.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Indiana charged Blake Layman and Levi Sparks with felony murder in the perpetration of a burglary in state criminal court.
- Following a joint jury trial, Layman and Sparks were convicted as charged.
- The trial court sentenced Layman to fifty-five years and Sparks to fifty years of incarceration.
- Layman and Sparks, as appellants, appealed their convictions and sentences to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but revised the sentences.
- The Supreme Court of Indiana granted the defendants' petition to transfer, thereby vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Indiana's felony murder statute impose criminal liability for the death of a co-perpetrator, who was killed by a non-participant, when the defendants were unarmed and did not engage in any dangerously violent or threatening conduct during the underlying burglary?
Opinions:
Majority - Rucker, Justice
No. The felony murder statute does not apply in this case because the defendants' conduct was not the mediate or immediate cause of their co-perpetrator's death. While the court reaffirms the precedent in Palmer v. State, which held that felony murder can apply when a non-participant kills a co-felon, it distinguishes the current case on its facts. In Palmer and subsequent cases, the defendants engaged in 'dangerously violent and threatening conduct,' such as being armed and threatening victims with weapons, which made the resulting death a foreseeable consequence of their actions. Here, by contrast, the defendants were unarmed and their conduct, while constituting burglary, did not involve any independent, dangerous, or violent acts. Therefore, there was nothing about their specific conduct that was the 'mediate or immediate cause' of their friend's death, and the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction for felony murder.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines Indiana's application of the felony murder rule, particularly in cases where a non-participant kills a co-felon. The court narrows the broad foreseeability test established in Palmer v. State by adding a crucial qualifier: the defendant's own conduct during the commission of the felony must be 'dangerously violent and threatening.' This moves the analysis beyond the inherent dangers of the underlying felony itself and requires a fact-specific inquiry into the perpetrators' actions. The ruling establishes a higher bar for prosecutors, making it more difficult to secure a felony murder conviction against unarmed felons who do not engage in violent acts that directly provoke a lethal response.
