Winston K. Wood v. State of Indiana - 6/18/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  June 18, 2013 
1:30 PM  EST

1:30 p.m. 53A05-1208-CR-42. Hoosier Boys State, Trine University. Winston K. Wood appeals his convictions for one count of leaving the scene of a boating accident resulting in serious bodily injury to a person, a Class D felony, and two counts of leaving the scene of a boating accident resulting in the death of a person, each as a Class C felony.  On appeal, Wood raises the following issues:  (1) whether the State presented sufficient evidence that Wood failed to comply with the duties required of a boater in an accident; (2) whether Indiana Code section 14-15-4-1 (pertaining to a boater’s duty during an accident) is unconstitutionally vague; (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Wood’s motion for discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C); and (4) whether Wood’s convictions and sentence violate principles of double jeopardy.

Back to Events
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

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...