ILNews

COA reverses conviction after BMV stumbles over address

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A driver whose conduct was “clearly blameworthy” had his conviction overturned after the Indiana Court of Appeals found the state’s evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver knew his license was suspended.

Israel Cruz was charged with operating a vehicle while suspended as a habitual traffic violator after he was pulled over for speeding while the HTV suspension was in effect. At a bench trial, Cruz admitted he knew he was not supposed to drive because he did not have an Indiana driver’s license; however, he denied having any knowledge of the HTV suspension.

The trial court ruled the state met its burden because the defendant did not rebut the presumption that he knew his license was suspended. Cruz was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor and sentenced to 365 days, all suspended to probation except for time served.

In Israel Cruz v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1204-CR-301, the COA reversed Cruz’s conviction because the evidence was not sufficient to show Cruz knew he was suspended.

Cruz asserts this case raises an issue of first impression regarding the meaning of “last address shown” in I.C. 9-30-10-16(b) when the driver has never held a license.

The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles sent notice of an HTV suspension to Cruz in 2011 to 3518 Steer St., Indianapolis. Cruz testified he did not live at that address so he never received the notice, and the BMV could not to explain why it used that location.

The court records submitted into evidence show three different addresses for Cruz, but none list the 3518 Steer St. residence. A BMV employee surmised the state agency probably obtained the address from the documentation generated from Cruz’s first traffic violation in 2004.

However, the COA ruled the employee was “simply guessing” and that the other addresses in the HTV packet were all more recent than 2004. The court noted although there is ample evidence that Cruz knew he had never received a license and that he was not supposed to drive, driving without having received a license is a separate offense than driving while suspended. Yet, the state chose not to charge him with driving without having received a license.

“In conclusion, though Cruz’s conduct is clearly blameworthy, the evidence presented by the State was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that he was suspended,” Judge Terry Crone wrote for the court.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT