Elkhart Four felony murder convictions overturned by Indiana Supreme Court

The Indiana Supreme Court threw out the felony murder convictions of inmates connected to the Elkhart Four, a group of four young men who gained international attention after they were convicted for the shooting death of their friend even though none of them pulled the trigger.

Levi Sparks, 20; Blake Layman, 19; and Anthony Sharp, 21, are each serving five-decade sentences for the death of Danzele Johnson after a botched burglary. While the state's highest court overturned the felony murder convictions, the justices ruled that they're guilty of burglary, a Class B felony punishable by six to 20 years in prison.

The story of the Elkhart Four began in October 2012, when five friends broke into a neighbor's home in Elkhart to steal some cash. Johnson, 21, was shot and killed by the homeowner. The remaining four, who were all teenagers at that time, were charged, convicted and sentenced for Johnson's death.

Under Indiana's felony murder statute, a person can be charged with murder if someone is killed while he or she is committing or attempting to commit another crime. That crime could be arson, burglary, robbery, carjacking, human trafficking, sexual trafficking, or sex and drug crimes — acts that the law considers inherently dangerous.

Felony murder carries the same penalty as murder, but unlike a murder charge, in which intent to kill must be proven, a person can be convicted of felony murder even if the death is accidental or unintended.

The case of the Elkhart Four brought attention to a controversial and highly criticized doctrine of criminal law. Critics say the felony murder statute goes against a basic principle of criminal law: culpability. Supporters of the statute say it's a crime deterrent that holds people accountable for committing dangerous acts that result in deaths.

Sparks, Layman and Sharp appealed their convictions, arguing they shouldn't be charged with murder because they didn't intend to kill and didn't foresee someone's death. The fourth defendant, Jose Quiroz, 19, pleaded guilty to a felony murder charge and did not file an appeal.

The justices, in 5-0 rulings, agreed with the appeals, issuing the opinions less than a year after they heard oral arguments. The court issued two separate, but similar, rulings. One for Sparks' and Layman’s consolidated appeal and another for Sharp’s.

Scroll down to view copies of the full rulings.

The rulings, however, fall short of changing Indiana's felony murder statute.

The Supreme Court justices denied a request in the appeal to overturn a felony murder conviction in a 1999 case wherein a police officer shot and killed one of the perpetrators. In that case, a man named Jesse Palmer pointed a loaded and cocked handgun at a police officer while trying to help an arrestee escape. Palmer shot the officer's hand, while another officer shot and killed the arrestee.

The justices say they “perceive no urgent reason to revisit a long-standing precedent” and they do not believe the felony murder statute was misapplied in the 1999 case, as well as in two other previous cases with similar sets of facts.

"The Supreme Court went to great lengths to say that they were not going to change the Palmer decision," said Greencastle lawyer Joel Wieneke, who represents Layman in his appeal. "However, it creates a legal precedent to compare other fact scenarios in the future to decide whether or not the Palmer case should apply in (other) cases."

South Bend lawyer Vincent Campiti, who represents Sparks, said the Supreme Court rulings basically distinguished the Elkhart Four cases from the other felony murder cases.

"The past (cases) had to deal with defendants who were outwardly violent in their intentions, outwardly threatening in their behavior," Campiti said.

The justices said the Palmer case is different from the Elkhart Four case, which involved unarmed defendants whose intentions were not to enter a confrontation with the homeowner, but to burglarize the house. The young men, according to the justices' opinions, did not engage in “dangerously violent and threatening conduct."

"There was simply nothing about the appellants' conduct or the conduct of their cohorts that was 'clearly the mediate or immediate cause' of their friend's death," the justices wrote in their opinions.

Layman, Quiroz, Sharp and Johnson broke into a home to steal some money. Sparks stayed outside as a lookout. Johnson kicked in the steel backdoor. The homeowner, Rodney Scott, was napping upstairs when he heard a loud boom and woke up. He grabbed his handgun and ran loudly downstairs. Afraid for his life, he fired his gun to scare them away.

Sharp immediately ran out the back door. Layman, Quiroz and Johnson ran to a downstairs bedroom and hid in a closet. Layman was shot in the leg. Johnson was shot in the chest and died.

Quiroz, Layman and Sharp were sentenced to 55 years in prison, while Sparks, who wasn't inside the house, was sentenced to 50 years.

All but Quiroz appealed their convictions and sentences. In September 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld their convictions, but ruled that their sentences were inappropriate. The appellate judges suspended 10 years of Layman's and Sharp's sentences to probation. They suspended five years of Sparks' sentence to probation.

In response to the Supreme Court's decision, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller issued a statement, saying the "Legislature — and not the courts — is the proper forum for changing our statutes."

"The Attorney General's Office also respects the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court to bring this tragic case to an end by amending the convictions while holding these young men responsible for their very serious and dangerous acts," Zoeller said in the statement.

Now, the cases will be sent back to Elkhart Circuit Court Judge Terry Shewmaker, who will re-sentence Layman, Sparks and Sharp for burglary. As their cases stand, they will be re-sentenced as adults. That includes Layman and Sparks, who were both juveniles when the crime occurred.

Wieneke said he will see if his client, Layman, is eligible for juvenile sanctions. Campiti, Sparks' attorney, said he plans to make an argument that his client should be sentenced as a juvenile.

Whether that can happen is unclear. Larry Landis, executive director for the Indiana Public Defender Council, said Indiana does not have a reverse waiver statute, which would allow adult courts to transfer cases to juvenile courts.

As for Quiroz, who pleaded guilty to a felony murder charge, he could file a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he could not have been convicted of felony murder based on the Supreme Court ruling on his co-defendants' appeals, Landis said.

"If he pled guilty to an offense for which he could not have been convicted, due process requires that it be vacated," Landis said.

No date for a re-sentencing hearing has been set. The state has 30 days to decide if it wants to seek a rehearing in the Supreme Court.