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. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT