Menu
(UPDATED WITH NEW INFORMATION) BREAKING NEWS: Jail escape charges dropped against half dozen inmates
Greene County Superior Court Judge Dena Martin has dismissed or will soon dismiss escape charges filed against six county jail inmates late last year.
The inmates crawled through ceiling tiles from one cellblock to another to engage in late-night sexual activities.
The judge found that evidence was insufficient to pursue the criminal charge of escape as a class C felony against the inmates.
Charges have been dismissed against four of the defendants and the charges against the other two inmates are expected to be dropped in the next day or two.
Charges have been dropped against William N. Hutcherson, Alexander Rathbun, Misty M. Moore, and Nicole Halderman.
Charges against the other two are expected to be dropped soon. They are Jesse B. Ross and Kay C. Snyder.
Through interviews, police learned that encounters between three female and three male inmates would be initiated after midnight -- when the jail commander was off work, according to court documents. The repeated rendezvous were alleged to have taken place undetected for about a two-month period.
In an order filed with the County Clerk's office Wednesday to dismiss the charges against one of the defendants -- Alexander Rathbun, Martin wrote, "The court having considered the motion to dismiss and having received evidence, briefs and arguments of counsel, the court now finds that the defendant did not flee from lawful detention as required by I.C. 35-44-2-5 (a)."
Inmates who had been charged with escape:
* Hutcherson, Jr., 44, Bloomfield, who was being held for a probation violation.
* Ross, 38, Linton, who was being held for possession of a controlled substance.
* Rathbun, 17, Bloomfield, who was being held for burglary, theft and possession of stolen property.
* Moore, 21, Bloomfield, who was being held on theft, possession of stolen property and forgery charges.
* Snyder, 27, Springville, who was being held for criminal recklessness and battery with bodily injury.
* Nicole Halderman, 26, Linton, who was being held for possession of a controlled substance.
Greene County Sheriff Terry Pierce said inmates Hutcherson, Halderman and Rathbun all remain in the county jail on unrelated charges to the escape. The others have been released.
Pierce previously told the Greene County Daily World that the encounter plot came to light Oct. 8 after jail employees David Sparks, Roberta Pierce, Marlene Newby, and Denise Andrew conducted a search of a male and female cellblock and uncovered letters that detailed the clandestine meetings that had been going on between the inmates out of the view of security cameras.
Letters recovered in a search of cellblock F-1 (the female lockup) indicated that the inmates had made their way through the ceiling area, making contact with each other -- including sexual activity, according to a probable cause affidavit filed by Greene County Sheriff's Department Det. George Dallaire.
The two cellblocks are located side by side and separated by a concrete wall, according to Sheriff Pierce. He said it's the only area in the jail that has "dorm" style accommodates. There are six beds on the female side and 12 in the male cellblock.
The female inmates allegedly used the shower drain cover as a tool and then "head-butted" the ceiling tile to gain entry, according to court records. They are alleged to have placed laundry hamper on top of Halderman's bunk bed -- out of the view of a security camera -- and stood on it to reach the loosen ceiling tile and climb over the male cellblock.
Since the incident, the ceiling tiles have been reinforced and other security measures have been put in place to prevent a repeat of activity, Pierce pointed out.
In a memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendant Rathbun, attorney James Reister called the statute used in the charging information as "unconstitutionally vague."
The present statute was enacted in 1976 and amended in 1977.
Reister wrote: "Indiana case law continues to require that the intention to leave the confines of the detention facility is an element of the offense of escape as charged under the current statute."
He continued, "The popular concept of the crime of escape brings to mind a desperate felon running at large in the community, willing to commit additional crimes against person or property in order to evade capture. That is why it merits classification as C felony. It is informative to note that in making revisions to the escape statute in 1976 and 1977, the Indiana legislature expanded the concept of escape by specifically adding new subsections creating Class D felonies for violations of home detention orders, removal of electronic monitoring devices, and failure to return to lawful detention following leave. All of these offenses are narrowly and clearly defined and involve situations where persons who are intended to be confined at certain times remain at large in the community where they are not authorized. A legislative intention is now clear that not all violations of detention merit the same serious penalty as escaping from prison. The conduct of the State in this case seeks to punish as a crime obviously does not fit within the specific definitions of the Class D felony violations of detention."
Reister also wrote: "The State in this case is seriously overreaching by asking the Court to ignore intent as an element and find that this defendant should be punished more severely than someone who succeeded in obtaining liberty by leaving home detention, by cutting off a monitoring device, or by not coming back to jail after an authorized leave. The case should be dismissed because due process prohibits expansion of the vague language of the statue to cover such facts. No one denies that the defendant broke a rule of the jail and that his conduct deserves punishment. But to suggest that his conduct constitutes the crime of escape at the level of a C felony distorts the statute beyond all reasonable interpretation."
Sheriff Pierce said he feels the inmates were charged appropriately and understood the judge's ruling.
The sheriff also agreed the statute is somewhat vague.
"I respect the decision of the judge. Obviously, the statute is somewhat vague," Pierce said, "I'm confident Judge Martin went by the letter of the law."
Pierce feels the escape statute needs to be amended by the General Assembly to be more specific to penal institutions like the county jail.
"It should be addressed whether this case goes to the Court of Appeals or not," Pierce added.