ILNews

Judges affirm criminal reckless conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who turned his car sharply enough to force his girlfriend out of the car and onto the road had his conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Michael Zanussi argued the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a continuance one day before his jury trial was to begin, that the trial court committed fundamental error when it admitted letters he wrote while in jail before trial, and that the state didn’t prove he committed the crime.

Zanussi was arguing in his car with Danielle Effinger when she became upset and unhooked her seatbelt and opened the door just enough that it wasn’t latched anymore. Zanussi then hit the gas and turned the wheel sharply, causing the door to fly open. Effinger flew out of the car and suffered minor injuries.

Five days before his trial was to start, Zanussi obtained replacement counsel. His new attorney said he could be prepared for the March 19 jury trial, but the day before the trial was set to start, the attorney sought a continuance because he had to travel to Chicago that day. The trial court denied the continuance.

Zanussi said he needed the continuance to deal with new evidence, but the attorney was granted time to discuss the new evidence with Zanussi prior to the start of trial, Judge Melissa May pointed out in Michael E. Zanussi v. State of Indiana, 29A05-1304-CR-173. Zanussi’s attorney also previously told the judge that he was prepared for trial, and there was no explanation how the motion to continue would aid in his preparation.

The judges found no fundamental error in the admittance of letters Zanussi wrote to Effinger while in jail that encouraged her not to testify. The state redacted the portions of the letter indicating Zanussi was in jail when he wrote the letters.

“Zanussi does not indicate specifically how the admission of the letters deprived him of a fair trial. The letters, especially Exhibit 7R, are highly probative, as they include statements indicating Zanussi was guilty and asking Effinger not to testify. Effinger’s mention that the letters were sent from jail was fleeting, as it happened once, and the State agreed to redact portions of the letters that indicated Zanussi was in jail. As the letters were not more prejudicial than probative, their admission was not an abuse of discretion and did amount to fundamental error,” May wrote.

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. 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...

ADVERTISEMENT