COA orders new trial in utility theft case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a theft conviction and ordered a new trial for a man who was prohibited from discussing a lesser offense during closing argument.

In the case of Edward J. Dixey v. State of Indiana, No. 82A05-1104-CR-172, Edward Dixey was convicted of Class D felony theft after an investigation revealed that utility equipment had been tampered with, allowing Dixey to use electricity without paying for it. On appeal, Dixey argued that the trial court erred when it prohibited him from discussing in closing argument that while the state failed to prove he had committed theft, it may have proven he committed a lesser offense instead.  

In August 2010, Dixey was renting a house in Evansville with roommate Steven Keller, who had also signed the lease. Dixey agreed to pay the rent, while Keller agreed to pay the cable and the electricity, which included gas. Although Dixey had placed the utilities in his name, he did not follow up with Vectren, the electric company, or any other utility company to ensure that the bills were being paid by Keller.

In August 2010, Dixey’s ex-wife, Carolyn, along with their two daughters and Carolyn’s son from a subsequent marriage moved in with Dixey. Around the same time, Dixey’s son, James, moved into the residence as well.

On Aug.16, 2010, Dixey arrived home to find that Vectren had disconnected his electricity for failure to pay an outstanding balance. Dixey testified that up until that day, he believed Keller had been paying the electric bill.

Dixey told Keller that he needed to have the electricity turned on by Aug. 18. Keller hired a friend to fix the electrical service box located on the outside of the house that had been damaged by high winds before the electricity had been disconnected. Dixey was not at home when the man performed the work, but the electricity was on when he arrived home that day. Dixey testified that James said he had the Vectren bill placed in his own name to “stop the friction going on” between Keller and Dixey, but Dixey did not call Vectren to confirm what James had told him.

On Aug. 31, 2010, a primary meter specialist for Vectren visited Dixey’s residence to investigate a report of a possible electrical service diversion and upon inspecting the weather head, which is the location where the Vectren wires connect with the customer’s wires, noticed that someone had tampered with them, thereby diverting electricity.

At trial, after all the evidence was presented, Dixey submitted four proposed jury instructions. Three of these instructions set forth the elements of what Dixey alleged were lesser-included offenses, including Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion, Class A misdemeanor criminal deception and Class B infraction utility fraud. The fourth instruction stated that “[i]t is a general rule of statutory construction that when general and specific statutes conflict in their application to a particular subject matter, the specific statute will prevail over the general statute.” The trial court instructed the jury on criminal conversion as an inherently lesser-included offense of theft but refused Dixey’s remaining tendered instructions.

The COA held it could not say that the trial court erred by refusing to allow Dixey to argue that under Indiana law, a specific statute prevails over a more general one, although he was free to argue that the evidence presented was more consistent with one of the lesser offenses, inasmuch as that was his defense. Accordingly, the appeals court reversed and remanded for a new trial.



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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?