ILNews

Court reverses woman’s driving while suspended conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because a woman’s conviction for driving while suspended was based in part on trial court speculation that she had driven farther than was necessary to put herself out of harm’s way, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the conviction.

Charrise Belton was in her boyfriend’s vehicle, which was parked outside of an Indianapolis home in an area of the city unfamiliar to her. When he came out, she could tell he was under the influence of a drug and was angry. He started yelling at her and she feared he might assault her as he had done twice in the past. When he got out of the car again, she moved to the driver’s seat and drove toward a part of town where her relatives lived.

Approximately a half mile later, she was pulled over by police on the belief the registration for the car was expired. She admitted to driving on a suspended license, explained the situation, and the officer gave her a summons.

Belton was charged with and convicted of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended. Belton doesn’t dispute that she drove on a suspended license but argued she did so out of manifest necessity.

The Court of Appeals found the state didn’t present sufficient evidence to dispute her necessity defense. The judge questioned at what point does the necessity to leave end and how far must she drive to be out of harm’s way. The judge wondered if Belton could have found a gas station or some other place to stop before one-half mile, but no evidence was presented that those were options.

“Our review of the record demonstrates that the trial court’s determination that the circumstances had abated to a point where it was no longer necessary for Belton to drive in the instant matter are not based upon evidence presented by the State to negate Belton’s necessity defense but rather on the trial court’s speculation that Belton had driven further than necessary, i.e., past a safe location where she could have stopped and called police,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote in Charrise Belton v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1310-CR-487.

 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT