Court rules on mistaken statutory language

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A mistaken statutory provision has led to a reversal of a decision by a trial court judge from Wells County.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Monday in State of Indiana v. Skylor Gearlds, No. 90A02-1105-CR-433.

In September 2010, the state charged Skylor Gearlds with Class A misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle while suspended based on a previous violation within the past 10 years. Gearlds had previously been convicted in April 2009 of OWI while suspended as an infraction. Specifically, the statute at issue is Indiana Code 9-24-19-2 that was added in 2000 after a preceding statute was repealed.

Wells Superior Judge Everett Goshorn dismissed the misdemeanor because the statute contains a mistaken cross-reference to statutes that no longer exist. Basically, it allows for a driving while suspended infraction to be enhanced when the driver either has a previous OWI conviction or when that previous conviction is within 10 years of the commission of any previous criminal offense.

The judge issued an order that said the statute erroneously refers to “subdivision (1)” rather than the unnumbered first paragraph of the statute and doesn’t define a criminal offense. The statute must be strictly construed, regardless of the intention of the Legislature, and the judge found no viable criminal charge for driving while suspended as a Class A misdemeanor exists under that statute.

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that to be an error because the statute remains enforceable as written.

“We conclude that although there is a mistake in the statute, it is clear that the legislature did not intend to elevate all driving while suspended offenses with prior convictions but rather only intended to elevate those offenses where the offender had a prior conviction within 10 years of the new offense,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote. “Put differently, the statute was intended to proscribe less conduct than the literal words of the statute do.”

Although the provision is a mistake, the intent remains to create an enhanced penalty for those who have a prior unrelated judgment for driving without a license within the past 10 years.

“This was merely an oversight that carried over from the old statute,” she wrote. “We presume that the legislature intended for the language to be applied logically and consistent with the underlying goals and policies of the statute. Moreover, we will not presume that the legislature intended to do a useless thing.”

The appellate court wrote that the Indiana General Assembly should amend IC 9-24-19-2 to remove the erroneous language to avoid any future litigation on this issue.


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. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.