Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Landis v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Brook’s driving while suspended charge was elevated to a Class A misdemeanor based upon her prior civil infraction judgment, not a prior criminal offense. [22] Brook relies on Landis v. State, which found that when the State must prove a prior conviction in order to elevate the present offense, a bifurcated trial must be held where the evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction and the acts which culminated in that prior conviction cannot be introduced until the jury has first decided whether the defendant is guilty of the present charge. 693 N.E.2d 570, 572 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), aff’d in pa | 1 | 1 |
Atwood v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Not only must the fact-finder determine whom to believe, but also what portions of conflicting testimony to believe.” Atwood v. State, 905 N.E.2d 479, 484 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting In re J.L.T., 712 N.E.2d 7, 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.), trans. denied. [10] King was convicted under Indiana Code section 9-24-19-2, which provides that, an individual who: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1605 | January 14, 2021 Page 8 of 12 (1) knows that the individual’s driving privileges, driver’s license, or permit is suspended or revoked; and (2) operates a motor vehi | 1 | 1 |
In Re JLTgreen1 sentence2021Not only must the fact-finder determine whom to believe, but also what portions of conflicting testimony to believe.” Atwood v. State, 905 N.E.2d 479, 484 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting In re J.L.T., 712 N.E.2d 7, 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.), trans. denied. [10] King was convicted under Indiana Code section 9-24-19-2, which provides that, an individual who: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1605 | January 14, 2021 Page 8 of 12 (1) knows that the individual’s driving privileges, driver’s license, or permit is suspended or revoked; and (2) operates a motor vehi | 1 | 1 |
Quillen v. Quillengreen1 sentence2020We will affirm a Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-CR-6 | August 13, 2020 Page 3 of 12 conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt, id., and we reverse only “when the record contains no facts to support [it] either directly or by inference.” Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996). [6] In order to convict King of driving while suspended, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that King “operate[d] a motor vehicle upon a highway,” while knowing that his “driving privileges, driver’s license, or pe | 1 | 1 |
Pickens v. Stategreen1 sentence2017“The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1610-CR-2320 | March 15, 2017 Page 7 of 10 from it to support the verdict.” Id. at 147 (quoting Pickens v. State, 751 N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)). [22] To convict Lesiewicz of Operating a Motor Vehicle while Privileges Are Suspended, as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lesiewicz operated a motor vehicle while her driving privileges or license was suspended within less than ten years after the date of a prior unrelated viola | 1 | 1 |
Boushehry v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Boushehry, 648 N.E.2d at 1179 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Landis v. State
green
1 sentence2023Brook’s driving while suspended charge was elevated to a Class A misdemeanor based upon her prior civil infraction judgment, not a prior criminal offense. [22] Brook relies on Landis v. State, which found that when the State must prove a prior conviction in order to elevate the present offense, a bifurcated trial must be held where the evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction and the acts which culminated in that prior conviction cannot be introduced until the jury has first decided whether the defendant is guilty of the present charge. 693 N.E.2d 570, 572 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), aff’d in pa | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence2020We will affirm a Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-CR-6 | August 13, 2020 Page 3 of 12 conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt, id., and we reverse only “when the record contains no facts to support [it] either directly or by inference.” Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996). [6] In order to convict King of driving while suspended, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that King “operate[d] a motor vehicle upon a highway,” while knowing that his “driving privileges, driver’s license, or pe | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Jenkins v. State
green
1 sentence2017“The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1610-CR-2320 | March 15, 2017 Page 7 of 10 from it to support the verdict.” Id. at 147 (quoting Pickens v. State, 751 N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)). [22] To convict Lesiewicz of Operating a Motor Vehicle while Privileges Are Suspended, as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lesiewicz operated a motor vehicle while her driving privileges or license was suspended within less than ten years after the date of a prior unrelated viola | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Lane v. State
green
1 sentence1988Lane v. State (1981), Ind., 428 N.E.2d 28 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.