Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A man who received life without parole for his role in torturing and killing a woman failed to convince the Indiana Supreme Court that three statutory aggravators applied to his murder conviction were inappropriate.
Donald Owen, a leader of the local Latin Kings gang in Elkhart County, was called to a house in 2019 after other gang members suspected a woman, Kim Dyer, was a police snitch.
By the time Owen arrived at the house, other members had interrogated Dyer in the basement and had her zip-tied with her mouth taped shut. They had also turned on another man, Rob Porter, whom Dyer had brought with her to the house.
Owen robbed Porter and zip-tied him before questioning Dyer. He removed a bandana he was wearing over his face because “there was no point in having it on” since Dyer knew she was going to die.
Owen then made Porter crawl into a dog cage and ordered him to put a cigarette out on his own tongue.
Porter was sent back to the basement, where he heard Owen tell another member to make Porter and Dyer “go to sleep.” Another member told Porter he would have to help strangle Dyer if he wanted to leave the house alive, so he did.
Another member eventually slit Dyer’s throat, and Owen never intervened. He then led the effort to clean the crime scene, and he put her body in a trash can and helped drive it to Michigan. Dyer’s body was discovered in a ditch covered in weeds and camouflage.
Owen fled to Texas, where he was arrested and brought back to Elkhart County.
Owen was convicted by a jury in the Elkhart Circuit Court of murder, felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury and two counts of criminal confinement.
The jury found three statutory aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt and recommended a sentence of life without parole for the murder conviction, which the trial court adopted.
Owen appealed, challenging his murder conviction and LWOP aggravator, as well as his sentence.
He argued there was insufficient evidence that he was a “major participant” in the murder and that there was insufficient evidence that he murdered Dyer while also satisfying one of the statutory aggravators that he did it to further the interests of the Latin Kings gang.
The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling he “actively participated in the antecedent crimes leading to Dyer’s murder.”
That included holding her against her will, interrogating her and giving the order to “make her go to sleep.”
The Supreme Court also ruled the criminal-organization aggravator was appropriate, finding it undisputed that the gang is a criminal organization and that Dyer’s confinement was related to the gang.
“Owen’s behavior at the house also connected the killing to the Latin Kings,” the opinion says. “He ‘tagged’ the basement after Dyer’s death, spraying his name, ‘King Duke’, and other Latin Kings symbols on the walls.”
The Supreme Court also ruled the under-custody aggravator was appropriate.
Owen also argued the trial court erred by declining to provide two proposed instructions to the jury.
The instructions included the state’s duty to prove Owen was a “major participant” and the different levels of intent the jury had to find in the penalty phase versus the guilt phase.
The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling the instructions could have confused the jury. As an example, the court cited ellipsis at the beginning of one of the instructions, “which could signal to the jury that some context is missing or omitted from the instruction,” the opinion says.
Lastly, Owen argued the trial court relied on several aggravating factors not supported by the record. Specifically, he argued there was insufficient evidence that he was involved in beating and torturing Dyer for being a snitch; that he allowed Dyer to have her head shaved, to be treated in a demeaning manner, to be waterboarded and to be duct-taped; and that he was present when Dyer was strangled and killed.
“As for Owen’s claim that he had nothing to do with Dyer’s torture, the record shows it happened on his watch and under his supervision,” the opinion says.
Even if he was right about one or more of the aggravators, the Supreme Court said the error wouldn’t warrant resentencing.
The Supreme Court noted after it heard oral arguments in the case, Owen sought a writ in aid of the court’s jurisdiction because his counsel learned belatedly that the trial court recorded but had not transcribed the trial’s sidebar conference.
The Supreme Court ordered the trial court to produce an amended transcript of the sidebars and told Owen to either file a supplemental brief or notify that he wouldn’t file a further brief within 30 days. But the brief was filed late, and his untimely brief meant any supplemental arguments were waived.
“Were we even to consider the additional arguments Owen raised in his supplemental brief, we would find them to be without merit,” the opinion says.
Justice Geoffrey Slaughter wrote the opinion. Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Justices Mark Massa, Christopher Goff and Derek Molter concurred.
The case is Donald R. Owen, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 21S–LW–333.
Owen’s case is the latest in the fallout from the killing.
Last year, the Court of Appeals of Indiana upheld a 127-year sentence for Mario Angulo, who was also involved in the incident.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.