ILNews

Judge argues state must prove actual endangerment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals split Monday regarding a man’s conviction of misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, with Judge Terry Crone arguing the statute requires the state to prove actual endangerment of the driver or others, not just the possibility of it.

Gregory E. Staten challenged his conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person and the finding he committed a Class C infraction failing to obey a stop sign. He was also convicted of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.15 or more and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated, but those two convictions were later tossed out.

Indiana State Trooper Joshua Greer saw Staten drive his car left of center and through a 3-way stop sign on a school access road. Staten failed field sobriety tests and consented to a chemical test, which showed a BAC of 0.15 percent.

In Gregory E. Staten v. State of Indiana, No. 87A04-1005-CR-393, the three judges vacated the Class C traffic infraction and $5 fine, noting the state conceded that as charged, the evidence was insufficient to prove Staten committed the infraction.

The majority upheld his remaining conviction over Staten’s arguments that the BAC test results were inadmissible because the traffic stop was illegal. The state conceded Staten didn’t violate I.C. Section 9-21-8-32 because the stop sign wasn’t at an entrance to a through highway, but claimed the traffic stop was legal pursuant to I.C. Section 9-21-4-11 because the Indiana Department of Transportation erected the 3-way stop sign there. As a result, the state claimed he violated I.C. Section 9-21-4-18 which says a person must obey signs posted under this chapter.

Judges Cale Bradford and James Kirsch found there was sufficient evidence to determine Staten committed a traffic violation under I.C. Section 9-21-4-18, giving Greer the legal right to stop Staten’s car.

The majority held that the state must prove that Staten was operating his car in a manner that could have endangered anyone, including himself. Greer testified that he saw Staten drive left of center and drive through the stop sign. This is sufficient to support his conviction.

Judge Crone dissented regarding Staten’s Class A misdemeanor OWI endangering a person conviction. There’s no evidence that the DOT erected the stop sign at the intersection, as required by I.C. 9-21-4-11, or whether the access road was open to the public and used for vehicular travel. The traffic stop was invalid, Judge Crone concluded, so his OWI conviction should be vacated.

In addition, Judge Crone said there isn’t sufficient evidence supporting that Staten drove his car in a way that endangered someone.

“With all due respect to my colleagues and the public policy concerns expressed in cases like Outlaw, Krohn, and Staley, I believe that the plain language of the statute requires the State to prove that a defendant operated his vehicle in a manner that actually endangered a person,” he wrote.

In this case, Judge Crone would vacate this conviction and order Staten’s Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a BAC of 0.15 or more be reinstated if not for the invalid traffic stop.  
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT