ILNews

Supreme Court grants transfer to OWI case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer Oct. 22 to a case involving a conviction of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

In Clint R. Beldon v. State of Indiana, No. 43S05-0910-CR-496, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a doctor's video-taped deposition at trial in lieu of her in-person testimony and if the state properly requested blood and urine test results pursuant to Indiana Code Section 9-30-6-6. The appellate court also ruled on whether the court erred in sentencing Clint Beldon by using the same prior conviction to elevate his Class A misdemeanor charge to a Class D felony, to support a habitual substance offender finding, and as an aggravating factor to support the imposition of a maximum sentence.

The Court of Appeals unanimously found the trial court erred by admitting the videotape, but the testimony was merely cumulative of other properly admitted evidence, so the error was harmless. The judges ruled Beldon waived his argument on the blood and urine test results because he failed to raise any argument at trial concerning the state's failure to provide evidence of requests for those tests.

The appellate court also found the trial court erred by elevating Beldon's charge of operating a vehicle while intoxicated to a Class D felony based on a prior conviction and enhancing his sentence in part upon a habitual sentence offender finding that relied upon the same prior conviction. The case was remanded so the trial court could remedy the sentencing defect.

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT