GUILTY IN - Amanda Blackburn, 28, pregnant, murdered, Indianapolis, 10 Nov 2015 #4

New Posts

SapphireSteel said:
IIRC there are 4 murder charges, two each for Amanda and baby.
Click to expand...
No, three murder charges, one enhancement for the baby

In bold are the three murder charges and the enhancement against LT with the sections of the applicable law underneath.

35-42-1-1(1): Murder 35-42-1-1(1)

Indiana Code - Section 35-42-1-1: Murder

(1) knowingly or intentionally kills another human being;

35-42-1-1(2): Murder 35-42-1-1(2) (Murder in the course of a burglary)

35-42-1-1(2): Murder 35-42-1-1(2) (Murder in the course of a robbery)

(2) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product tampering, criminal deviate conduct, kidnapping, rape, robbery, human trafficking, promotion of human trafficking, sexual trafficking of a minor, or carjacking;
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/42/1/35-42-1-1

35-50-2-16/NC: Murder/Att Murder Causing Termination Of Human Pregnancy Enhancement 35-50-2-16

Indiana Code - Section 35-50-2-16: Termination of a human pregnancy; enhancement

(a) The state may seek, on a page separate from the rest of the charging instrument, to have a person who allegedly committed or attempted to commit murder under IC 35-42-1-1(1) or IC 35-42-1-1(2) sentenced to an additional fixed term of imprisonment if the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person, while committing or attempting to commit murder under IC 35-42-1-1(1) or IC 35-42-1-1(2), caused the termination of a human pregnancy.
(b) If the person is convicted of the murder or attempted murder in a jury trial, the jury shall reconvene to hear evidence in the enhancement hearing. If the trial was to the court, or the judgment was entered on a guilty plea, the court alone shall hear evidence in the enhancement hearing.
(c) If the jury (if the hearing is by jury) or the court (if the hearing is to the court alone) finds that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person, while committing or attempting to commit murder under IC 35-42-1-1(1) or IC 35-42-1-1(2), caused the termination of a human pregnancy, the court shall sentence the person to an additional fixed term of imprisonment of not less than six (6) or more than twenty (20) years.
(d) A sentence imposed under this section runs consecutively to the underlying sentence.
(e) For purposes of this section, prosecution of the murder or
attempted murder under IC 35-42-1-1(1) or IC 35-42-1-1(2) and the enhancement of the penalty for that crime does not require proof that:
(1) the person committing or attempting to commit the murder had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim was pregnant; or
(2) the defendant intended to cause the termination of a human pregnancy.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/50/2/35-50-2-16
 
wendiesan said:
DG or JW must have flipped on LJT since they would have been the only witnesses to declare that Amanda had said anything about her pregnancy in his presence and the enhancement has been added.
Click to expand...
DG was never in the house, though it's pretty obvious he is the CI. He's only been charged in the first two burglaries that morning.

Regardless, LT might not have been aware AB was pregnant. Knowledge of a pregnancy is not a prerequisite for the enhancement. See previous post.
 
Chuz Life said:
Exactly.

It is un-imaginable to think that she would not have done exactly that. In other words, I can not imagine that she would have kept that to herself. They had to know.
Click to expand...

Do we really know that? I don't think we know what words she and the killer exchanged. She may not have said anything about being pregnant. She had her living CHILD in the house and she was STILL murdered. As if a killer would have cared about her pregnancy when he didn't even care about her child who is now left motherless.
 
Sherwood Park said:
Do we really know that? I don't think we know what words she and the killer exchanged. She may not have said anything about being pregnant. She had her living CHILD in the house and she was STILL murdered. As if a killer would have cared about her pregnancy when he didn't even care about her child who is now left motherless.
Click to expand...

I don't know how best to respond to this. All I said is that "I can't imagine her NOT saying she was pregnant." I never said anything to indicate that her killers would care one way or the other.

The reason I raised the question was to see if any charges were filed on behalf of the child that was murdered too.
 
MaxManning said:
Agree. Deliberate and cruel, with an intent to kill, is a good description of the last shot. Overkill is if she was already dead and he just kept on shooting her.
Click to expand...

It's known by firing squads as the coupe-de-grâce (blow of mercy). However, no mercy was intended in this case. Just expediency.

JMO
 
I assume it hardly matters

Whether they knew or not

The fact is she WAS pregnant, so there IS enhancement.

If the crims think that's unfair, well, too bad

We all think its unfair Amanda and Everett wont see this Christmas because YOU wanted a laptop....:pullhair:
 
SapphireSteel said:
I assume it hardly matters

Whether they knew or not

The fact is she WAS pregnant, so there IS enhancement.

If the crims think that's unfair, well, too bad

We all think its unfair Amanda and Everett wont see this Christmas because YOU wanted a laptop....:pullhair:
Click to expand...

BBM This (to me) begs the question; "Is an enhancement enough?"

If a child was killed, and we already have laws which define them as a child and the charge of Murder is an option. . . why then did the prosecutors opt to simply make it an enhancement?

If I was the father in this case, I would be outraged that my murdered child is being recognized as something less than they might have been recognized in other cases.

By the way, I agree with your take on the criminals. I have no mercy for them.
 
Chuz Life said:
BBM This (to me) begs the question; "Is an enhancement enough?"

If a child was killed, and we already have laws which define them as a child and the charge of Murder is an option. . . why then did the prosecutors opt to simply make it an enhancement?

If I was the father in this case, I would be outraged that my murdered child is being recognized as something less than they might have been recognized in other cases.

By the way, I agree with your take on the criminals. I have no mercy for them.
Click to expand...

What other option is available? To charge with murder, the prosecution would have to show the death of the fetus was intentional.

Indiana Code - Section 35-42-1-1: Murder

A person who:

(4) knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability (as defined in IC 16-18-2-365);
commits murder, a felony.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/42/1/35-42-1-1
 
bessie said:
What other option is available? To charge with murder, the prosecution would have to show the death of the fetus was intentional.

Indiana Code - Section 35-42-1-1: Murder

A person who:

(4) knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability (as defined in IC 16-18-2-365);
commits murder, a felony.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/42/1/35-42-1-1
Click to expand...

I see your point, Bessie. I was under the impression that Indiana Law was worded more along the lines of the UVVA. Since it isn't, it looks like Indiana law falls short of providing the "equal protections" of our laws to the child in this case. Sad.
 
The death of the mother was intentional therefore the death of her dependant fetus was also intentional.
 
bessie said:
What other option is available? To charge with murder, the prosecution would have to show the death of the fetus was intentional.

Indiana Code - Section 35-42-1-1: Murder

A person who:

(4) knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability (as defined in IC 16-18-2-365);
commits murder, a felony.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/42/1/35-42-1-1
Click to expand...

"Viability", for purposes of IC 16-34, means the ability of a fetus to live outside the mother's womb.
As added by P.L.2-1993, SEC.1.

So depending on whether or not he knew she was pregnant he could get the extra charge, but it looks like it wouldn't matter because the fetus wasn't viable. Am I reading that right?
 
bessie said:
I could post numerous examples of LEO's talking about a "burglary gone wrong/bad". It's such a common occurrence that the term has made it's way into the lexicon of modern expressions. We've heard it so often it's become familiar to us.
Click to expand...

"Drug deal gone bad" is another one. And although less common I've heard "love triangle gone bad" a few times.

Murder is always something gone bad.
 
bluesneakers said:
"Viability", for purposes of IC 16-34, means the ability of a fetus to live outside the mother's womb.
As added by P.L.2-1993, SEC.1.

So depending on whether or not he knew she was pregnant he could get the extra charge, but it looks like it wouldn't matter because the fetus wasn't viable. Am I reading that right?
Click to expand...
My question is, am I reading you right? lol

One convicted of, or who pleads guilty to, murder or attempted murder of a pregnant woman is subject to an additional 6-20 years if it's proven the act terminated the pregnancy. Knowledge and intent are not factors.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "it wouldn't matter because the fetus wasn't viable". Note, the statute states "human pregnancy" as opposed to "fetus", which is stipulated in the murder statute. Thus, it appears there is no test for viability under this statute. I think that's your point, but I'm not sure.

If I'm interpreting correctly, the only burden on the state is to prove that the murder, or attempted murder, caused the termination of the pregnancy. It's interesting to ponder the challenges a prosecutor would face under various circumstances that might come into play.

JMO

Indiana Code - Section 35-50-2-16: Termination of a human pregnancy; enhancement

(a) The state may seek, on a page separate from the rest of the charging instrument, to have a person who allegedly committed or attempted to commit murder under IC 35-42-1-1(1) or IC 35-42-1-1(2) sentenced to an additional fixed term of imprisonment if the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person, while committing or attempting to commit murder under IC 35-42-1-1(1) or IC 35-42-1-1(2), caused the termination of a human pregnancy.

(b) If the person is convicted of the murder or attempted murder in a jury trial, the jury shall reconvene to hear evidence in the enhancement hearing. If the trial was to the court, or the judgment was entered on a guilty plea, the court alone shall hear evidence in the enhancement hearing.

(c) If the jury (if the hearing is by jury) or the court (if the hearing is to the court alone) finds that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person, while committing or attempting to commit murder under IC 35-42-1-1(1) or IC 35-42-1-1(2), caused the termination of a human pregnancy, the court shall sentence the person to an additional fixed term of imprisonment of not less than six (6) or more than twenty (20) years.

(d) A sentence imposed under this section runs consecutively to the underlying sentence.

(e) For purposes of this section, prosecution of the murder or
attempted murder under IC 35-42-1-1(1) or IC 35-42-1-1(2) and the enhancement of the penalty for that crime does not require proof that:
(1) the person committing or attempting to commit the murder had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim was pregnant; or
(2) the defendant intended to cause the termination of a human pregnancy.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/50/2/35-50-2-16
 
Hi Bessie. I love your Christmas get up. Merry Christmas my friend.

And merry Christmas to all that are dedicated for justice for Amanda. I salute.
 
SapphireSteel said:
The death of the mother was intentional therefore the death of her dependant fetus was also intentional.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, good luck with that. How does one go about proving an intentional act upon a human life whose existence is unknown to the one who performed the act? That's the beauty of the enhancement. It doesn't allow for excuses. JMO
 
DexterMorgan said:
Hi Bessie. I love your Christmas get up. Merry Christmas my friend.

And merry Christmas to all that are dedicated for justice for Amanda. I salute.
Click to expand...
That's some getup you've got there, yourself. LOL

Merry Christmas, Morgan. :)
 
bessie said:
My question is, am I reading you right. lol

One convicted of, or who pleads guilty to, murder or attempted murder of a pregnant woman is subject to an additional 6-20 years if the act terminates the pregnancy. Knowledge and intent are not factors.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "it wouldn't matter because the fetus wasn't viable". Note, the statute states "human pregnancy" as opposed to "fetus", which is stipulated in the murder statute. Thus, it appears there is no test for viability under this statute. I think that's your point, but I'm not sure.

If I'm interpreting correctly, the only burden on the state is to prove that the murder, or attempted murder, caused the termination of the pregnancy. It's interesting to ponder the challenges a prosecutor would face under various circumstances that might come into play.

JMO

Indiana Code - Section 35-50-2-16: Termination of a human pregnancy; enhancement

(a) The state may seek, on a page separate from the rest of the charging instrument, to have a person who allegedly committed or attempted to commit murder under IC 35-42-1-1(1) or IC 35-42-1-1(2) sentenced to an additional fixed term of imprisonment if the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person, while committing or attempting to commit murder under IC 35-42-1-1(1) or IC 35-42-1-1(2), caused the termination of a human pregnancy.

(b) If the person is convicted of the murder or attempted murder in a jury trial, the jury shall reconvene to hear evidence in the enhancement hearing. If the trial was to the court, or the judgment was entered on a guilty plea, the court alone shall hear evidence in the enhancement hearing.

(c) If the jury (if the hearing is by jury) or the court (if the hearing is to the court alone) finds that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person, while committing or attempting to commit murder under IC 35-42-1-1(1) or IC 35-42-1-1(2), caused the termination of a human pregnancy, the court shall sentence the person to an additional fixed term of imprisonment of not less than six (6) or more than twenty (20) years.

(d) A sentence imposed under this section runs consecutively to the underlying sentence.

(e) For purposes of this section, prosecution of the murder or
attempted murder under IC 35-42-1-1(1) or IC 35-42-1-1(2) and the enhancement of the penalty for that crime does not require proof that:
(1) the person committing or attempting to commit the murder had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim was pregnant; or
(2) the defendant intended to cause the termination of a human pregnancy.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/50/2/35-50-2-16
Click to expand...

That's what I was confused about. The way I was reading it seemed to be saying two different things and it wasn't making sense at all. But now I see it's enhancement vs. murder.

Tbh I had to read most of your comment out loud to get it.

Thank you for your patience. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 127 more.
Total: 3,218 (members: 128, guests: 3,090)

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
3,090
Total visitors
3,218
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,387
Messages
17,968,275
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top