ILNews

Fatal accident leads COA to examine boating statute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A boat operator’s appeal of his convictions stemming from a fatal accident on Lake Monroe in 2010 split the Indiana Court of Appeals as to whether I.C. 14-15-4-1 is unconstitutional as applied.

Winston Wood was 19 years old when he and two friends were wakeboarding on the lake. He was driving his father’s boat when it collided with a boat driven by James Collier. Neither saw each other until the boats hit. The accident killed Collier’s wife and grandson, and injured Collier’s leg. Two other grandchildren on Collier’s boat were uninjured. Wood and his friends were also not injured.

Wood dove into the water toward Susan Collier, but he returned to his boat and drove it to the Fourwinds Marina after realizing he could not help Susan Collier. His friend called 911 and the operator told them to stay at the marina until authorities arrived. They believed their boat was taking on water.

The state charged Wood under I.C. 14-15-4-1 with leaving the scene of a boating accident resulting in the deaths of Susan Collier and grandson Gage, Class C felonies, and leaving the scene of a boating accident resulting in serious bodily injury to James Collier, a Class D felony. The statute outlines what the operator of a boat involved in an accident or collision resulting in injury or death or damage shall do.

In Winston K. Wood v. State of Indiana, 53A05-1208-CR-423, Judges Melissa May and John Baker found sufficient evidence supported Wood violated the boating statute, but his three convictions of leaving the scene of a boating accident subjected him to double jeopardy, “as he was punished three times for an act – leaving the scene of an accident – he committed only once,” May wrote. Based on Nield v. State, 677 N.E.2d 79 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), his act of leaving the scene can only support one conviction under the statute. The majority remanded for the trial court to dismiss one Class C felony conviction and the Class D felony conviction and to accordingly resentence Wood and reimburse the fines it imposed for those additional convictions.

The majority declined to find the statute unconstitutional as applied to Wood, but noted that the requirements of 14-15-4-1 will, in many emergency situations, “require behavior that defies logic, and engaging in innocent, and even advisable, behavior can leave one in violation of the statute,” May wrote. “This statute permits no consideration of what is reasonable in any given emergency situation; nor does it permit citizens to engage in any balancing of considerations that arise in typical emergencies and are likely required by other statutes.”

The majority encouraged the General Assembly to address these concerns.

Judge James Kirsch dissented, finding I.C. 14-15-4-1 is unconstitutional as applied.

“It is unquestioned that Wood claimed that he and his passengers were subject to significant peril and that he acted reasonably in moving his boat and its passengers to the marina. The statute did not give Wood fair notice that it was forbidden conduct to leave the scene of the accident even if Wood feared for his safety or that of his passengers and that necessity demanded that he leave the immediate accident scene.”

 

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