ILNews

8-year sentence upheld for teen who killed friend while street racing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Madison County man who crashed his car while street racing, which killed one passenger and injured two others, could not convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in declining to give a lesser-included instruction of reckless driving at his trial for reckless homicide.

In Paul J. Coy v. State of Indiana, 48A02-1301-CR-65, 19-year-old Paul Coy picked up 17-year-old Darian Hurn and two female teens from school early. The group met up with Mike Ducheteau and his friends. Hurn asked if Ducheteau wanted to race. While racing on the rural two-lane road, Coy’s car got up to 106 mph. He lost control and crashed, severely injuring Hurn and the teen girls. Hurn died the next day from his injuries.

Coy was charged with and convicted of Class C felony reckless homicide and two counts of Class C felony criminal recklessness. As a condition of being released on bond, he signed a protective order promising not to have any contact with anyone in the car. Despite this, he continued to communicate with A.K., one of the teen girls, who was his girlfriend.

He requested an instruction for reckless driving be provided as a lesser-included offense of reckless homicide; the court refused. He was sentenced to eight years on the homicide charge and three years each for the criminal recklessness charges, to be served concurrently.

Coy asserted the following: that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the lesser-included offense of reckless driving to be argued and included in the jury instructions; that the state presented a fatal variation between the charging information and the proof at trial; that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the maximum sentence for reckless homicide; and that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

The Court of Appeals found Coy waived the issue of the lesser-included offense instruction, but waiver notwithstanding, because there was no serious evidentiary dispute over the elements that distinguish the crime charged from the lesser-included offense, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to give an instruction for Class B misdemeanor reckless driving.

The judges also found there was not a fatal variation in the charging information and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering aggravators and failing to consider or give proper weight to mitigators. Coy’s eight-year sentence is appropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character, the judges concluded. He only had one previous speeding ticket, but through his actions, has shown a disregard for the law, including speaking with A.K. after being ordered not to.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT