ILNews

Judges affirm part of sentence, reverse enhancements on double jeopardy grounds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman whose dogs attacked and injured two people failed to prove that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions. But the Court of Appeals agreed that a portion of her overall sentence should be vacated based on double jeopardy grounds.

In Carolyn Boss v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-1106-CR-320, Carolyn Boss argued the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions of failure to restrain three dogs and harboring non-immunized dogs. In 2008, the dogs escaped her yard and attacked Carole Bales as she walked down an alley. Two of the dogs also attacked Thomas Wimberly when he tried to help Bales. After a passerby alerted Boss to the attack, she called off the dogs and returned them to her yard.

Bales and Wimberly suffered extensive injuries, including permanent nerve damage. Bales was hospitalized for two weeks, and Wimberly was hospitalized for six weeks.

Animal control officer Deborah Dobbins responded to the scene and saw large gaps in the chain link fence in Boss’ yard. A third dog was tied to a tree, but its collar was so loose that it slipped off the dog’s head. Dobbins observed blood on all three dogs

Boss explained she was taking care of the dogs, which belonged to her incarcerated son. The dogs had no rabies tags, and Boss had no vaccination records for the animals. Boss voluntarily surrendered the animals to Animal Care & Control.  

The state charged Boss with six counts of Class A misdemeanor failure to restrain a dog and six counts of Class B misdemeanor harboring a non-immunized dog. She received an aggregate sentence of two years for the Class A misdemeanors and concurrent 180-day sentences for the Class B misdemeanors — to be served concurrently with the two-year sentence. She also received 168 days of probation.

The COA held that the dilapidated fence and the ill-fitting collar indicate Boss failed to take reasonable steps to restrain the animals and that the lack of rabies tags and immunization records would allow one to reasonably infer the dogs were not immunized.

The appellate judges agreed with Boss’ assertion that she was subjected to double jeopardy when her convictions for harboring a non-immunized dog were elevated to a Class B misdemeanor on the same type of bodily injury elevating her convictions for failure to restrain a dog to a Class A misdemeanor. They remanded with directions to vacate the convictions and sentences for harboring non-immunized dogs and enter a determination that Boss committed Class C infractions, rather than Class B misdemeanors.

Boss claimed her two one-year consecutive sentences violated the 14th Amendment, but the COA noted that it can’t address a constitutional question when a decision can be based on any other statutory or common-law basis. While Boss’ failure to restrain the dogs was a single act, it resulted in separate harms to separate people. The COA could not say that Boss is entitled to a limit on her sentence pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2.

 

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT