Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A woman found guilty of killing her ex-boyfriend by poisoning his oatmeal and strangling him failed to convince the Court of Appeals of Indiana that her murder conviction should be tossed or that her 100-plus-year sentence is inappropriate.
Heidi Littlefield was convicted of murder, Level 1 felony conspiracy to commit murder and Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit murder for the killing of her ex-boyfriend, Francis Kelley.
Littlefield’s relationship with Kelley soured after the birth of their child, B.K. Littlefield didn’t want Kelley to have a relationship with B.K. or her adult children.
After filing a petition to establish custody, parenting time and child support in March 2020, Littlefield approached two of her adult daughters about purchasing drugs to poison Kelley. They refused, so Littlefield asked another daughter, Logan Runyon, to help get fentanyl.
In exchange, Littlefield promised to give Runyon some of the life insurance proceeds from Kelley.
In October 2020, Littlefield brought Kelley soup that she and Runyon had laced with the fentanyl. Although it made Kelley sick, he didn’t die.
Littlefield then spoke with Runyon’s boyfriend, Robert Walker, about hiring a hitman to kill Kelley. Walker said he “knew someone,” and Littlefield gave him a $2,500 down payment. However, Walker and Runyon spent the money on hotels and drugs.
Littlefield and Runyon got more fentanyl in January 2021 and laced refrigerated oatmeal.
Kelley ate it the next day and texted Littlefield that he felt “funny” and “light-headed.” Shortly after, Littlefield and Runyon went to Kelley’s house, where he was lying on the floor but still breathing.
Littlefield got one of his ties and strangled Kelley while slamming his head to the floor.
She was found guilty as charged by a jury in the Hamilton Superior Court and sentenced to an aggregate term of 115 years.
On appeal, Littlefield argued the murder conviction should be reversed because the state didn’t establish that she killed Kelley, only that she attempted to kill him.
Littlefield cited the autopsy report that found the primary cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation rather than acute fentanyl intoxication. Even though Runyon testified at trial that Littlefield strangled Kelley, Littlefield argued he was still alive when they left his house.
The Court of Appeals wasn’t persuaded, citing Littlefield’s role in planning the killing and the evidence pointing to her as the last known person to see Kelley alive.
Littlefield also argued the dual convictions for murder and Level 1 conspiracy to commit murder can’t stand because of the double jeopardy prohibition in the Indiana Constitution.
When applying the double jeopardy test announced in Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. 2020), Littlefield argued her murder conviction should be set aside. Specifically, she argued that neither the murder statute nor the conspiracy to commit murder statute include language that expressly states or implies multiple punishments are permitted.
Indiana treats the offense of conspiracy to commit an offense as a separate crime from the underlying offense, the Court of Appeals said, citing Coleman v. State, 952 N.E.2d 377 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Thus, there was no double jeopardy violation in Littlefield’s case under the Wadle test, the Court of Appeals ruled, allowing both convictions to stand.
Littlefield also argued the 115-year aggregate sentence was inappropriate considering the nature of the offenses and her character. She received 60 years for murder, 35 years for the Level 1 felony and 20 years for the Level 2 felony — all of which were more than the advisory sentence but five years less than the maximum.
Littlefield argued the sentence should be revised because of her habitual drinking and difficult childhood.
The Court of Appeals disagreed.
“The horrendous circumstances of the crimes, along with Littlefield’s persistent pattern of trying to kill Kelley that ultimately deprived B.K. of a father, her continued manipulation of Runyon to participate in the murder plot, and the fact that she left her minor daughter in the car during the murder, do not warrant a revision of the sentence when examining the nature of the offenses,” the opinion says.
Turning to her character, the Court of Appeals ruled Littlefield’s anger toward Kelley and desire to exclude him from B.K.’s life — along with threats made against her daughter to keep her involved in the murder plot — “speaks volumes” about her “poor character.”
Chief Judge Robert Altice wrote the opinion. Judge Dana Kenworthy and Senior Judge Margret Robb concurred.
The case is Heidi Marie Littlefield v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-2895.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.