ILNews

Trial court erred in denying motion to continue

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion Superior trial court should have granted a woman's motion to continue the day of her bench trial because she had a constitutional right to present a defense to support her involuntary intoxication argument, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided today.

In Jennifer Barber v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0901-CR-34, Jennifer Barber argued the trial court erred in denying her motion because her defense counsel had just located two witnesses who supported her defense of involuntary intoxication the weekend before her trial was to start. Barber was convicted of Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated and Class C misdemeanor failure to stop after an accident resulting in property damage.

Barber played pool at an American Legion in Indianapolis and said she only had one vodka martini that night. She claimed she left her drink unattended several times throughout the night. She later got in her car and rear-ended a car and then left the scene of the accident. Barber claimed she doesn't remember anything between the time of playing pool and waking up in the hospital. When arrested, she couldn't stand up and was slurring her words. She consented to a chemical test, but one was never given.

Barber was granted two continuances, the second to allow her to locate witnesses who could testify on her behalf that she was involuntarily intoxicated. It wasn't until the day before her bench trial that her attorney located a key witness - a woman who claimed she too may have been involuntarily drugged that night. The trial court denied the motion to continue because it had set a hard deadline of Dec. 1, 2008, for the witness list; her bench trial was scheduled for Dec. 15.

There's no evidence Barber's attorney acted in bad faith in asking for the continuance and the state would have suffered minimal prejudice in delaying the trial, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. There was obvious prejudice to Barber from not being able to present the testimony of the other woman and another witness.

"In light of Barber's right to present a defense, the strong presumption in favor of allowing the testimony of even late-disclosed witnesses, the lack of substantial prejudice to the State, and the resultant prejudice to Barber, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Barber's motion to continue and therefore remand for a new trial," the judge wrote.

The appellate court also pointed out for remand that the abstract of judgment shows Barber was convicted under Indiana Code Section 9-30-5-1(b), but according to the charging information, she was charged under section 2(b), which requires her to operate a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangers another person. Because the chemical test and blood draw didn't occur, the appellate court was "perplexed" as to why the trial court entered judgment of conviction under 9-30-5-1, wrote Judge Vaidik.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT