ILNews

Majority affirms conviction despite no witnesses

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An appellate judge dissented from the majority's decision to uphold a woman's conviction of operating a car after her driving privileges had been forfeited for life, finding that confirming her conviction would break from precedent.

In Cathy A. Crawley v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-0905-CR-280, Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Patricia Riley believed the evidence of the case created a probability that Cathy Crawley was driving the car that crashed into an acquaintance's pool early in the morning, but that the probability is less than beyond a reasonable doubt. She based her dissent on previous rulings that dealt with the sufficiency of evidence to prove operation of a car, and found the majority's affirmation of Crawley's conviction goes against the precedent set by those cases.

Crawley was found by acquaintance Donald Jones in his backyard early in the morning in November 2008; she was soaking wet, wearing boxer shorts, a tank top, and no shoes. She was disoriented and asked if Jones had seen her car. After searching for a moment, she realized the car was partially in Jones' above ground pool. Crawley's purse, jacket, and cigarette butts were found by his hot tub. Jones believed she had been drinking and Crawley admitted to taking pills used to treat seizure disorders and panic attacks. No one had seen her drive the car into the pool, but she was alone when she was found.

Over Crawley's objections, Jones called the police. Crawley had borrowed the car from a friend weeks earlier and then refused to return it. She was convicted of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after driving privileges are forfeited for life.

Judges Nancy Vaidik and Terry Crone affirmed the conviction because they believed when taken as a whole, the substantial circumstantial evidence supported the trial court's inference that Crawley operated the car, ultimately drove it into Jones' pool, and was found alone and impaired at the scene. She also frequently referred to the car as hers.

The majority rejected Crawley's arguments that she was too intoxicated at the time she made the statement about nobody being with her, so it wasn't reliable; that the trial court put substantial weight on the fact that water was found in her purse and that it must have come from the pool; and Crawley's challenges to the trial court's discrediting of her friend's testimony about when Crawley was at her house because her arguments would require the appellate court to reweigh the evidence.

"We find it to be of no moment that nobody observed Crawley operate the motor vehicle because the State presented sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Crawley operated the motor vehicle," wrote Judge Vaidik.

ADVERTISEMENT

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