The Elkhart 4

This is another case in which I saw a documentary on Amazon Prime. This one was called “1275 Days” and talked about the case of four young men who were charged with felony murder when they, and another accomplice, broke into an occupied home. The oldest of the five, twenty-one year old Danzele Johnson was shot and killed by the homeowner.

Despite living in Indiana my entire life I really knew little about this case. One thing that I found interesting then, and now, is that the prosecutor in the case from 2013 is the current Attorney General of Indiana, Curtis Hill. Hill was elected in November of 2016 and his tenure as Attorney General has been a challenge for him, and the state. Some will likely argue this is because he is the first African American Attorney General in the state, however, seeing as Indiana is a Republican led state and Hill himself is a Republican it seems a bit hard to argue that point in my opinion. He has held that he is completely against the legalization of marijuana in any form, including medical and at one point declared CBD oil as illegal even after a bill was passed in the state to legalize the use. It left the state in a bit of turmoil during that time as the legal arguments continued and businesses, as well as residents, were uncertain of the legalities of CBD oil. The state finally stepped in and overruled him. He also faced controversy throughout the COVID-19 pandemic as he accused lawmakers in Indianapolis of violating rights but again he was overruled. However, the largest controversy he faced was when three women accused him of sexual assault. A special prosecutor was brought in who found the accusations credible but said there lacked enough evidence to charge him. However, the state stepped in and in 2020 Hill had his law license suspended for 30 days in which his assistant had to officially take over his duties. In July of 2020 there were three other candidates running against Hill in the Republican primary election. Hill lost to former State Representative, Todd Rokita. I found it quite interesting that in Hill's bio on the official Indiana Government page the case of the Elkhart Four was not mentioned. Just prior to being elected as Attorney General the case had been overturned and convictions were vacated. In essence it was because Curtis Hill mis-charged the teenagers. I have no doubt that had the case not been overturned it would have been listed under his accomplishments on his page as it was one in which he was extremely proud of despite the controversy involved. But, here I go again getting ahead of myself.

On October 3, 2012 five young men decided to commit a burglary in Elkhart Indiana. They were sixteen year old boys Blake Layman and Jose Quiroz, seventeen year old Levi Sparks, eighteen year old Anthony Sharp and twenty-one year old Danzele Johnson. According to appeal papers Layman, Quiroz and Sparks had decided to rob a home and called in Sharp and Johnson to help who apparently were more than willing to do so. They were unarmed and intended on breaking into a home that was not occupied. The first door they knocked on was answered by barking dogs so they decided this would not be the home. The second house they knocked on was occupied but apparently when they knocked on Rodney Scott's home, located across the street from Quiroz's home, there was no answer and they believed it to be empty.

Sparks remained at Quiroz's home as a look out while the other four kicked in Scott's back door. Scott would later testify that he was taking a nap in an upstairs bedroom. Apparently the first jar at the door startled him and awoke him. It was about 2:30 in the afternoon. After being awakened Scott heard two more banging noises. His next door neighbor's home had recently been robbed so Scott was sure that was what was happening to him. Scott stated he grabbed his phone and his 9mm handgun and loaded it. As Scott began to exit his bedroom he saw the intruders and they saw him. Anthony Sharp would run out the door while Scott shot his gun. Layman, Johnson and Quiroz would hold up in a closet in the home where Scott basically kept guard as he called 9-1-1 and waited for the police. At one point the boys appeared to be coming out of the closet but it seems like they were just trying to let Scott know that their friend, Danzele Johnson had been shot and had died. Layman had also been shot in the leg.

Authorities arrived and Layman and Quiroz were arrested along with Sparks, who it was said never entered the home. Danzele Johnson was declared dead at the scene. Layman was treated for his injuries and returned to the jail. A warrant was issued for Anthony Sharp, apparently based on information gathered from the other boys and on October 12^th he was found and arrested. The prosecutor, Curtis Hill, decided to charge the four men with felony murder and try them all as adults.

A charge of felony murder can be a bit complicated depending on the state but the long and short of it means that when a felony is being committed and anyone dies those committing the felony can be charged with murder. Taking this case as an example in nearly every law of felony murder if Rodney Scott had been killed by one of the men, regardless if they were present in the home, knew one of them were armed or intended for someone to be murdered they all could be charged with felony murder. In some cases if law enforcement is involved and forced to shoot someone the perpetrators can be charged with murder. Indiana law is written that regardless who is murdered, or how, if someone dies during the commission of a felony everyone involved can be charged with felony murder.

The case garnered a lot of media attention for a few reasons. One was because of the ages of at least three of the defendants. The second reason was because none of the men were armed and had not pulled the trigger. For me personally the first thing that struck me, and apparently later the State Supreme Court was that none of the men were charged with the burglary, the felony that allowed the murder charge. In fairness my research did show that just before deliberations began in the case the jurors were given the choice to only charge the defendants with burglary which left me a bit surprised at the Supreme Court ruling for a second until I looked a little deeper.

Jose Quiroz would plead guilty on November 15, 2012, just a month and a half after the incident occurred. On December 13, 2012 he was given a fifty-five year sentence with ten years suspended. The remaining three defendants, Layman, Sparks and Sharp chose to take their cases to trial but argued for separate trials, which was denied by the courts. Their trial began August 20, 2013. Quiroz was the “key” witness in the trial but he did little to help the prosecutors. He repeatedly invoked his 5^th Amendment rights and stated he was threatened into taking a plea deal. As I stated above just before deliberations the prosecution and the defense agreed to let the jury consider the lesser charge of burglary. On August 22, 2013, after a two day trial and five hours of deliberations the jury returned a verdict of guilty against all three. Ultimately Blake Layman and Anthony Sharp were sentenced to fifty-five years and Levi Sparks received fifty years due to the fact he never entered the home.

Each of the three boys that were convicted filed appeals. Blake Layman and Levi Sparks basically argued the same points so their appeals were ultimately together. Anthony Sharp's appeal differed a bit in the fact that part of the defense argument was that the only “proof” that he was present and participated in the crime had come from Quirez. In fact, it was said that in the trial Quirez had even failed to confirm that Sharp had participated. The main argument was that they had all been “over-charged” in the fact that while they were charged with felony murder, which meant they were in the process of committing a felony, but were not charged with the actual felony that they were accused of committing. Quirez was not involved in these appeals at the time because due to his plea-deal he was not allowed to appeal.

In September of 2014 the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the convictions 2-1 but did suspend ten years of the sentences for Layman and Sharp and five for Sparks. At that point three of the four had received the same sentence with Sparks serving five years less because he never entered the home as Quirez had received in his plea deal. The defense chose to take the case to the Indiana Supreme Court. On September 18, 2015 the court overturned the convictions for Layman, Sparks and Sharp ordering the case back to the trial court to be found guilty of the lesser felony charge, burglary and to be sentenced accordingly to that charge. The prosecution appealed this decision asking that the court order a re-trial but the Supreme Court denied this motion.

In January of 2016 all three defendants once again went into a courtroom to be sentenced on burglary charges. When they left Laymen and Sharp were sentenced to ten years while Sparks received a sentence of nine years and one day. They had all spent about three and a half years in prison at that point and just a few weeks later Levi Sparks was released. Both he and Layman had received their GED's while in prison which had shaved off time and neither of them had been in any trouble. Layman would be released in March of 2016. Anthony Sharp would not be released until the either 2017 or 2018 (I could not determine for sure) due first to not doing the extra programs, but also issues he had while inside.

The month before Layman was released Jose Quiroz also received good news. While he had been barred from appealing his case, he was allowed to ask for post conviction release. He took would eventually be sentenced to ten years and was released in 2017.

Rodney Scott has never spoken publicly about what he went through. The only statement that he ever made was through his court testimony. He expressed regret that someone died at his hands but adequately expressed how fearful he was in the moment. He testified that he had recurring nightmares and had never spent another night in the home that he had lived in for eighteen years. Scott was never charged in the case as he was defending himself and property at the time of the shooting.

Both Blake Layman and Levi Sparks have expressed remorse with their actions. They have been interviewed extensively over the years and both have stated that while they regret their actions they understand that the path they were on would have eventually taken them to prison, and maybe the grave. They have expressed gratitude because in a sense they believe going to prison likely saved their lives. Less information could be found about Anthony Sharp and Jose Quiroz. However, it does appear that while three of the four have remained out of trouble since their release Jose Quiroz was recently in trouble again. In February of 2020 he was charged with battery resulting in serious injury as well as residential breaking and entering after he threw a brick at a woman and hit her in the face. In June he entered in a plea deal which dismissed the most serious charges and left him with convictions on charges of criminal recklessness and criminal trespass. From my understanding, counting his time served the judge ordered the rest of his time (two years on one count, one on the other), to be served on home detention. However it appears that in August a warrant was issued for his arrest for violating his conditions. Court records show “escape” which with home detention could simply mean he was somewhere he was not supposed to be. There is nothing else showing what may have come of this at this time.

There are many who argue that the Supreme Court was wrong in overturning the convictions and that the original sentences of fifty or more years should have stood. They argue that three and a half years was not enough time for murder. Others argued that while legally the charge of felony murder could be used, that it was used inappropriately. Those people give several reasons that range from the age of the defendants to the fact they were not armed and had intended and believed they had broken into an unoccupied house.

If you are a regular reader of my blog then you know that when it comes down to things for me it is mainly about the law, whether I agree with the law or not. In this case, before I ever knew the reason behind the Indiana Supreme Court reversing the convictions, I thought it basically unfair that the defendants were charged with felony murder without being charged with the felony in which they were committing when the murder occurred. In my opinion that should always be done. I do not understand why it was not in this case. Layman and Quiroz were both arrested literally inside the home and it was said that property belonging to Rodney Scott that had previously been in his kitchen was found in the closet where the two hid, with Danzele Johnson after Scott opened fire on them. It seems certain that one of those two informed law enforcement about Levi Sparks being across the street keeping watch as he was quickly arrested. Anthony Sharp's appeal would claim that the only evidence law enforcement had that he was involved was the word of Jose Quiroz. But, there seemed to be no question when it came to Quiroz and Layman. There is no evidence that any of the four were ever initially also charged with burglary. I would suspect I would have seen that if Quiroz's plea would have dismissed that charge.

But let's also talk for a second about Quiroz's plea. First, I am rather disturbed how quickly that was obtained. He changed his plea in court within a month and a half of the murder. I never heard any talk of the prosecutor seeking the death penalty although only Anthony Sharp was of age to allow that. While there are many different reasons to accept a plea agreement the most important one comes when prosecutors threaten the death penalty, which they could not do with Quiroz. It is unclear if his plea was an “open” plea, meaning the judge has full discretion or whether he had agreed to a range of years or a set amount of time. I also found nothing regarding his representation but I am left with questions about how good that representation could have been especially considering the little time there seemed to be for negotiations. Nearly a year later when the other three went to trial Quiroz argued that he had been threatened to accept the plea (Threatened with what??) and he took the 5^th Amendment on many questions. Generally a plea would have including forcing him to testify against his accomplices and if he failed to follow through would have forced him either into a trial of his own or additional years on his sentence. Neither seemed to happen here so again, this plea deal seems odd.

With all of that being said I also question the legalities of the prosecutor and defense attorney's agreeing at the last minute to allow the jurors to consider burglary as a lesser crime. I have heard of cases in which prosecutors are seeking a murder conviction and will add options to lesser charges such as manslaughter but those options are related to the initial charge. I do not know that I have seen a trial court allow a basically “unrelated” charge to be considered. Yes, we all know that the boys were in the commission of a crime when the murder occurred but again, they were not charged with that crime. I suspect that the Indiana Supreme Court felt the same and that is the reason they completely vacated the convictions and ordered the courts to find them guilty of burglary and charged accordingly as well as refused to allow the prosecutors to retry them.

I want to add that according to the the documentary “1275 Days” the family of Danzele Johnson did not agree with the original lengthy sentences that were given.

Going through what I have recently in my life has also given me another outlook on things. Not everyone is their crime. Of course there are some people who no matter what their punishment will never change or learn but there are those who do learn a lesson, and sometimes quicker than others. We punish people for crimes like a one size fits all on a first offense. I admit that when it comes to this case I would most likely feel different if one of the boys would have gone in with a weapon and Rodney Scott would have been the one murdered. Then again I would probably want to hear from the ones who did not pull the trigger too and evaluate their situation. I cannot say a lot about Anthony Sharp since I found little on him and no interviews, but then again it appears that he has remained out of trouble. The same could be said about Blake Layman and Levi Sparks who have both proclaimed that prison saved their lives. They have both gone on to hold jobs and start families. But, then there is Jose Quiroz who apparently still has run ins with the law and seemed to learn little by serving time.

Personally I feel that Curtis Hill, who had been prosecutor for 10 years at the time of the murder knew that in 2016 he would be running for Attorney General and he used this case as an example to show how he was tough on crime. I do not recall much about his campaign efforts but just over a year before the election the case fell apart. Not only that but the State had all but ruled they had been charged inappropriately. I can almost guarantee you that this case would be high up on his resume and in campaign efforts if the convictions would have stood. I feel like in his zealousness he went too far... or maybe not far enough, depending on how you look at things.

We can only hope that those who learned a lesson, remember that lesson for a lifetime.