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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT