ILNews

Judges affirm part of sentence, reverse enhancements on double jeopardy grounds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman whose dogs attacked and injured two people failed to prove that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions. But the Court of Appeals agreed that a portion of her overall sentence should be vacated based on double jeopardy grounds.

In Carolyn Boss v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-1106-CR-320, Carolyn Boss argued the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions of failure to restrain three dogs and harboring non-immunized dogs. In 2008, the dogs escaped her yard and attacked Carole Bales as she walked down an alley. Two of the dogs also attacked Thomas Wimberly when he tried to help Bales. After a passerby alerted Boss to the attack, she called off the dogs and returned them to her yard.

Bales and Wimberly suffered extensive injuries, including permanent nerve damage. Bales was hospitalized for two weeks, and Wimberly was hospitalized for six weeks.

Animal control officer Deborah Dobbins responded to the scene and saw large gaps in the chain link fence in Boss’ yard. A third dog was tied to a tree, but its collar was so loose that it slipped off the dog’s head. Dobbins observed blood on all three dogs

Boss explained she was taking care of the dogs, which belonged to her incarcerated son. The dogs had no rabies tags, and Boss had no vaccination records for the animals. Boss voluntarily surrendered the animals to Animal Care & Control.  

The state charged Boss with six counts of Class A misdemeanor failure to restrain a dog and six counts of Class B misdemeanor harboring a non-immunized dog. She received an aggregate sentence of two years for the Class A misdemeanors and concurrent 180-day sentences for the Class B misdemeanors — to be served concurrently with the two-year sentence. She also received 168 days of probation.

The COA held that the dilapidated fence and the ill-fitting collar indicate Boss failed to take reasonable steps to restrain the animals and that the lack of rabies tags and immunization records would allow one to reasonably infer the dogs were not immunized.

The appellate judges agreed with Boss’ assertion that she was subjected to double jeopardy when her convictions for harboring a non-immunized dog were elevated to a Class B misdemeanor on the same type of bodily injury elevating her convictions for failure to restrain a dog to a Class A misdemeanor. They remanded with directions to vacate the convictions and sentences for harboring non-immunized dogs and enter a determination that Boss committed Class C infractions, rather than Class B misdemeanors.

Boss claimed her two one-year consecutive sentences violated the 14th Amendment, but the COA noted that it can’t address a constitutional question when a decision can be based on any other statutory or common-law basis. While Boss’ failure to restrain the dogs was a single act, it resulted in separate harms to separate people. The COA could not say that Boss is entitled to a limit on her sentence pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2.

 

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT