Title: Boswell v. State

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

250 Ind. 607 (1968)
238 N.E.2d 283
BOSWELL
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 1267S152.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed July 1, 1968.
Wilmer L. McLaughlin, of Goshen, and Lee F. Mellinger, of Elkhart, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Attorney General, and Murray West, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
*608 LEWIS, C.J.
On May 28, 1965, at approximately 8:00 P.M., the decedent was driving a van truck west on a two-lane highway. A witness, one Mr. Rose, was following the van truck in his car, driving at about 40 miles an hour. While the witness was following the decedent he noticed a black car, being driven by appellant, "coming up awful fast" behind him. The black automobile then came around the witness' car and pulled in between the witness and the decedent's vehicles. The witness stated that the appellant "... kind of made it short ..." causing him to "fade back" in order to give him some room.
Following this, the black car started out once again  this time to pass the van truck which was driven by the decedent. The witness stated that the black car cut in front of the decedent and "cut him short". The stop lights of the van truck came on, "the back wheel of the truck came up", and the appellant's car headed across the road. An oncoming car was approaching the vehicles in question. The black car had been hit in the rear by the front of the van truck. The decedent was pinned behind the steering wheel of the truck and had to be removed through the rear doors; he died thereafter as a result of abdominal injuries received in the crash.
A State Trooper who arrived shortly after the crash to investigate the collision testified that, in his opinion, the appellant was intoxicated. The appellant's eyes were bloodshot, the odor of alcoholic beverages was prevalent, and his speech was slurred. Another witness testified that there were beer cans on the floor of the black automobile.
During the trial, the same State Trooper testified that based upon the relative positions of the automobiles, the damages thereto, and the skid marks on the pavement, that in his opinion, the appellant had attempted to pass the decedent and had cut in on him too soon thereby causing the contact between the two vehicles.
At the scene of the crash, the trooper arrested the appellant *609 for driving a motor vehicle on a public road while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. However, the appellant was later charged by affidavit for the crimes of Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide. After a trial by jury, the appellant was found guilty of Reckless Homicide pursuant to Burns' Indiana Statutes, Anno., (1967 Cum. Pkt. Sup.), § 47-2001 (a). It is from this conviction that appellant seeks relief in this Court.
On appeal, the appellant raises the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. More specifically, he contends that the State is bound to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime charged, and that there is no proof that the appellant's driving caused the collision. Witness Rose, on cross examination, testified that the black automobile was completely in front of the van truck for a period of five (5) to ten (10) seconds before the van truck's stop lights went on. Therefore, it is clear that appellant had completed his passing and the collision occurred on the right hand side of the pavement.
Appellant is correct in his statement that the State must prove that the appellant's driving caused the collision resulting in death.
The evidence clearly indicates that the decedent was traveling about 40 miles an hour along the highway. There was no one in front of him. The appellant passed the decedent, and two (2) witnesses stated that the car being driven by the appellant cut the decedent short and came in too soon. A crash ensued immediately. There can be no doubt that the appellant's acts caused the death of the decedent. However, the appellant's assigned error also causes us to *610 consider whether or not the acts of the appellant amounted to a reckless act as well. Mere negligence of the appellant is not enough to sustain a conviction of reckless homicide. Beeman v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 683, 115 N.E.2d 919.
The State makes much of the fact that the appellant was intoxicated while driving his vehicle. It is its contention that driving an automobile while intoxicated is a reckless act in itself, regardless of the manner in which the vehicle is handled. In the case at bar it is unnecessary for us to pursue this doubtful doctrine. The appellant was charged with reckless homicide, and unless he was driving his car in such a manner, he is not guilty of the crime as charged.
Count Two of the Affidavit upon which the jury returned the verdict appealed from reads as follows:
The statute under which this affidavit is based, Burns', § 47-2001(a), supra, reads as follows:
From reading this statute, it is clear that the appellant must have committed some act with reckless disregard for the safety of others and thereby caused the death of another person. This reckless disregard has been defined in Beeman v. State, supra, as follows:
The evidence discloses that the appellant drove his car in and out of traffic while passing two (2) cars on a double-lane highway. On two (2) occasions the appellant cut in too soon on the car he had just passed. On the second occasion, this act precipitated a collision resulting in one man being killed. We must conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury might return a verdict of guilty of reckless homicide. On appeal from a criminal conviction, where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, the Court cannot weigh the evidence, but will only consider the evidence most favorable to the State, and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, to determine whether the jury was warranted in returning a verdict of guilty. Gilmore v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 359, 98 N.E.2d 677; Flowers v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 151, 139 N.E.2d 185.
Judgment is affirmed.
Arterburn, Hunter and Jackson, JJ., concur; Mote, J., not participating.
NOTE.  Reported in 238 N.E.2d 283.