ILNews

Judges split on endangerment issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found the state proved a defendant had driven drunk, but the judges disagreed as to whether the state showed the man had endangered others with his driving.

In James Dorsett v. State of Indiana, No. 82A01-0906-CR-292, James Dorsett appealed his conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class A misdemeanor, which requires showing that his operation of his car endangered a person. A Vanderburgh County Sheriff sergeant spotted Dorsett in his car, which was parked and running in the middle of a parking lot early in the morning. Dorsett was slumped over in the car and took more than 30 seconds to wake up after the sergeant got to the car. He told the officer he was at a friend's party, on his way home, and had stopped at a McDonald's for food. Dorsett appeared intoxicated and tests showed his blood alcohol content at 0.12 percent.

Dorsett was convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as Class A and Class C misdemeanors. His convictions were merged and he was sentenced only on the Class A misdemeanor.

Even though the sergeant didn't see Dorsett driving his car, the state presented enough circumstantial evidence to show Dorsett had driven. The sergeant testified Dorsett told him he had drank at a friend's house and then drove to McDonald's. Based on the time he went to McDonald's, only the drive-thru window would have been open. It could be reasonably inferred that Dorsett drove to McDonald's and then parked his car in the nearby parking lot, the appellate judges concluded. This was sufficient to only support his Class C misdemeanor conviction, so the majority reversed the Class A misdemeanor conviction and remanded for judgment and sentence to be entered on the Class C misdemeanor conviction.

Judge Cale Bradford dissented on the reversal of the Class A misdemeanor conviction, believing the state proved endangerment by presenting evidence Dorsett was much more than minimally intoxicated and his driving created a risk.

"In my view, a fact-finder should be free to conclude, based on a high level of intoxication alone, that a driver endangered himself or others when he operated a vehicle, even if no direct evidence of dangerous operation was presented," he wrote.

Based on the evidence and testimony of the sergeant, one could conclude Dorsett was so drunk he wasn't capable of driving his car into a parking space or turning the engine off before passing out. Clearly anyone operating a vehicle in that condition poses a serious threat to public safety, wrote Judge Bradford.

Judge Edward Najam wrote in a footnote for the majority that Judge Bradford commingled the Class A misdemeanor charge with the Class C charge, stating that "intoxication alone" is sufficient to support a Class A misdemeanor conviction as long as the intoxication is "more than minimal."

"But the statute as recently amended does not recognize degrees of intoxication and clearly requires more than intoxication to establish endangerment," wrote Judge Najam.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT