Court Opinion

ID: 9727697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:48:12.908182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:41.622936
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from the Majority for the following reasons:
1. The Majority has assumed the role of fact finder and substituted its findings for those of the jury.
2. The Statute, IC 9-12-2-1, provides that when the driver's record shows that he is a habitual violator under IC 9-12-1-4 that "the commissioner shall mail a notice to the person's last known address ..." State' Exhibit Number 1 shows a certified copy of the "Notice of Suspension". This Exhibit was admitted in evidence and considered by the jury. (Tr. 160)
8. Hunter's denial that he never received the notice is a question of fact for the jury-not this Court of review; the jury did not believe Hunter's denial.
State's Exhibit Number 1 certifies that notice of suspension was mailed to Hunter. A copy of the letter of suspension and a copy of Hunter's driving record comprise State's Exhibit Number 1 which was admitted in evidence and considered by the jury in its deliberations. Hunter's testimony that he did not receive the letter of suspension is a question of fact for the jury. The jury did not believe Hunter. For our review, the matter of notice is closed and determined.
I would abandon the fact finding position assumed by the Majority and affirm the trial court.