Court Opinion

ID: 9744911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:22:51.276508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:53.349448
License: Public Domain

OPINION
STATON, Judge.
Phillip Kirts appeals his conviction for speeding following a jury trial, a Class C Infraction. Ind. Code § 9-21-5-2 (1993) and Ind. Code § 9-21-5-13 (1993). At the close of the State’s case in chief, Kirts moved to dismiss the complaint because the speeding ticket did not contain the signature of the court clerk, attesting that the police officer issuing the ticket had sworn to it in the clerk’s presence, as required by statute. Ind. Code § 9-30-3-6 (1993). The trial court denied Kirts’ motion to dismiss, and the sole issue Kirts presents for review is whether the complaint should have been dismissed due to the absence of the statutorily mandated signature.
We affirm.
No Indiana cases specifically address the proper time to contest a defective charging instrument in a prosecution for a traffic infraction, but the timing of challenges to flawed charging instruments has been addressed in other contexts. See e.g. Bowling v. State, 248 Ind. 663, 230 N.E.2d 439 (1967); Gilley v. State, 227 Ind. 701, 88 N.E.2d 759 (1949); Jennings v. Davis, 645 N.E.2d 23 (Ind.Ct.App.1995); Wine v. State, 637 N.E.2d 1369 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied; Thurman v. State, 162 Ind.App. 267, 319 N.E.2d 151 (1974), trans. denied; McGowan v. State, 156 Ind.App. 344, 296 N.E.2d 667 (1973), trans. denied. The rule that has developed is that a motion to dismiss a flawed charging instrument must be raised prior to trial or the error is waived. Thurman, 319 N.E.2d at 155. The rationale for this rule is to give the prosecution an opportunity to amend the charging instrument before trial so that the “expense and time-consuming efforts in a trial will thus not be lost.” Id (internal quotations omitted). Courts have further considered whether the accused was prejudiced in defending himself due to the challenged defect. Id. The reasons supporting this rule apply equally to a prosecution for a traffic infraction.
In this case, Kirts did not object to the charging document until after the State had concluded its case-in-chief. Kirts argued at trial and in his appellate brief that he did not want to file a motion to dismiss charges prior to the close of the State’s .case-in-chief because he did not want the State to have the chance to amend the complaint. However, the rule requiring prompt objection to de*758fects in the complaint is for the specific purpose of avoiding the waste of having to twice bring a case to trial because the defendant delays his objection until it is too late to reform the complaint. A prompt objection by Kirts would have enabled the State to correct the defect before trial through a motion to amend under Ind. Trial Rule 15. State v. Hardman, 542 N.E.2d 230 (Ind.Ct.App.1989), trans. denied.
Nor was Kirts prejudiced by the missing signature. The record reveals that Kirts was not in any way misled as to the nature of the offense charged. It appears clearly from the ticket that Kirts was charged with driving 71 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour speed zone at 10:15 a.m. on Thursday, August 29,' 1996, while traveling south bound on U.S. 41 in Benton County, Indiana. Kirts testified in detail about the traffic stop and issuance of the ticket by Trooper Kendall. Too, Kirts cross-examined Trooper Kendall as to the certification and calibration of his radar detector. Finally, Kirts presented evidence impeaching Trooper Kendall’s credibility through the testimony of co-workers who had also been stopped by Trooper Kendall on August 29, 1996, and who demonstrated inconsistencies in the reports filed by Trooper Kendall. Kirts’s own testimony, along with the defense he prepared, make clear that he was well apprised of the charge against him and that he was not prejudiced by the absence of the statutorily required signature.
We adopt for application to a prosecution for a traffic infraction the general rule that an error in the charging instrument must be raised before trial or it is waived. Kirts did not object to the missing signature before trial, and he was not prejudiced by this formal defect. Therefore, his conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.
DARDEN, J., concurs.
HOFFMAN, J., dissents with separate opinion.