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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT