ILNews

COA divided on dismissal of OWI charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals split on whether a defendant’s operating while intoxicated charges should have been dismissed because the charging information didn’t let the man know what vehicle he needed to defend against operating.

Police saw a Lexus in a ditch on the side of the road and Richard Laker hitching the car to the back of a Massey Ferguson farm tractor. Laker told police that a friend wrecked the car and asked Laker to tow it out. Laker didn’t have a driver’s license, his driving privileges had been suspended, and he blew a 0.10 on a chemical breath test.

The state charged him with four counts: Count I alleged he unlawfully, knowingly or intentionally operated a motor vehicle while driving privileges were suspended; Count II alleged he unlawfully operated a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration equivalent to at least 0.08; Count III alleged he operated a vehicle while intoxicated; and Count IV alleged he had a prior OWI conviction. None of the charges specified whether it was the tractor or the Lexus that he allegedly illegally operated. The probable cause affidavit described the subject vehicle as the tractor.

Laker moved to dismiss the charges, which the trial court granted.

The appellate judges agreed in State of Indiana v. Richard J. Laker, Jr., No. 24A04-0912-CR-736, that Count I should have been dismissed. The charging information for that count didn’t specify what vehicle he allegedly operated, and Laker couldn’t prepare a proper defense without that knowledge.

“That Laker moved to dismiss this charge on the ground a farm tractor was not a ‘motor vehicle’ and because he was prohibited from operating while suspended demonstrates the information did not ‘specify the facts and circumstances which inform the accused of the particular offense coming under the general description with which he is charged,’” wrote Judge Melissa May in the majority opinion.

Finding that the charging information for the other counts were virtually identically in structure to Count I, the majority found them to also be deficient.

Judge Nancy Vaidik dissented on the dismissal of Counts II, III, and IV. She noted that the Indiana Supreme Court has indicated that even where a charging information may lack appropriate factual detail, additional materials such as a probable cause affidavit supporting the charging instrument may be taken into account in determining whether a defendant has been apprised of the charges against him. She found the state’s pleading materials on the whole, which include the probable cause affidavit and summons ticket that describe the subject vehicle as the tractor, sufficiently apprised Laker of the state’s charges.

“I agree with the majority that, given the unique circumstances alleged in this case, identifying the vehicle in the charging instrument would have been ideal. I would conclude, however, as the trial court impliedly did in its ruling, that the probable cause affidavit and summons tickets cure any purported omission and clarify that the State’s charges are premised on Laker’s farm tractor,” she wrote.

Since a farm tractor isn’t excluded from the definition of “vehicle” for purposes of OWI, she wrote she would find those counts are sustainable and the trial court erred by dismissing them.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT