Appellate court rules statute not unconstitutional

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The presumption found in Indiana Code Section 9-30-10-16, which governs driving while privileges are suspended, isn't unconstitutional because it doesn't shift the burden of proof from the state, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

Even though Jacob Donaldson waived his appeal of the constitutionality of the statute in Jacob A. Donaldson v. State of Indiana, No. 71A03-0811-CR-564, the appellate court still addressed the issue in Donaldson's appeal of his conviction of operating a motor vehicle while privileges are suspended as a Class A misdemeanor.

Over the course of nearly six months, Donaldson received driving suspension notices for various reasons with various suspension dates. He also received a notice of reinstatement during that time, but the notice didn't specify any of Donaldson's suspensions. He was pulled over for speeding and charged with operating a motor vehicle while suspended as a habitual offender, a Class D felony.

During a bench trial, a habitual traffic violator packet was admitted over Donaldson's objection. The trial court also rejected his argument he was confused by all the notices and concluded a reasonable person could have contacted the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to figure out the status of his driving privileges. At his sentencing hearing, his conviction was reduced to the Class A misdemeanor.

On appeal, Donaldson argued I.C. Section 9-30-10-16(b) is unconstitutional because it mandates a presumption of knowledge of suspension if the state can show the BMV mailed notice of the suspension to the defendant's last known address. Despite the waiver, the appellate court addressed his argument and found the statute isn't unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals cited Thompson v. State, 646 N.E.2d 687 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), and Chilcutt v. State, 544 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989), to support its finding that the presumption in the statute at issue is permissive and not mandatory.

"In light of our decisions in Chilcutt and Thompson, the statute must be read to declare that, upon proof of one fact, service of the suspension by first class mail at the defendant's last shown address, the defendant's knowledge of the suspension may be presumed or inferred, but this presumption can be rebutted," wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the admittance of the HTV packet because it wasn't purported to be a complete copy of Donaldson's driving record but was just a copy of the record requested by the state. The state only requested the HTV packet and that was admitted, wrote Judge Riley.

There is also sufficient evidence to support Donaldson's convictions because the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt he knew his driving privileges were suspended.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit