ILNews

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 Specifically, the statute at issue is Indiana Code 9-24-19-2 that was added in 2000 after a preceding statute was repealed.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.
 

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. 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!

  2. 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.

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

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT