Cunningham v. State, 1-1181A335
| Citation | 438 N.E.2d 308 |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-1181A335,1-1181A335 |
| Parties | Robert G. CUNNINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
James E. Davis, Davis & Davis, Greenfield, for defendant-appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
Both the State and Cunningham file motions for rehearing. On March 29, 1982, we reversed this cause on the basis of the inadequacy of the personal waiver of the jury trial by Cunningham, which case is reported at 433 N.E.2d 405. In that opinion, because of the reversal, we did not rule on Issue 3, that the evidence was insufficient to prove a prior conviction of driving under the influence. In his motion for rehearing, Cunningham contends that if the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, he would be placed in jeopardy a second time by the granting of a new trial. We have agreed to write to the merits of Issue 3, but our ruling thereon is adverse to Cunningham. The State's motion for rehearing is denied without opinion.
On January 26, 1981, Cunningham was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated on January 25, 1981, in Hancock County, after having been previously convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. This offense is a Class D felony. Cunningham, in Issue 3, challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the prior conviction, not the sufficiency of the evidence to prove driving while intoxicated in the present instance. The evidence most favorable to support the conviction reveals the following: at the scene of the accident in which he was involved, Cunningham could produce no operator's license and gave false names at first. At last, he gave his name as Robert Glen Cunningham, date of birth September 12, 1944, Social Security number SS 308-46-2567. At trial, Officer Watkins testified, without objection, that a computer printout from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles obtained on the night of the arrest reflected four previous "arrests" for driving under the influence, and that Cunningham was one and the same person as shown in that print out. He further testified that Cunningham's present driving status was that of suspended. The certified copy of the computer print out was then admitted as Exhibit A, and it reflected the "arrests" testified to by Officer Watkins.
Exhibit B was then admitted without objection, and it was identified as a certified copy of "the abstracts of court convictions and suspensions of Robert G. Cunningham, D.O.B. [Date of Birth] 09/12/44, R.R. 3, Logansport, Indiana." Counsel for defendant not only did not object to Exhibit B, but stated "With the proviso that it is admitted solely for the purpose of proving the other convictions of operating under the influence and not as to other matters which may be therein contained."
Exhibit B showed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. State
...cited by Sullivan. The document in this case unambiguously indicates a conviction rather than an arrest. See also, Cunningham v. State (1982), Ind.App., 438 N.E.2d 308, 310, trans. denied.6 The docket sheet does establish that a Terry J. Sullivan was sentenced on a driving offense on Octobe......
-
Mogle v. State
...records and those of the court to warrant upholding this particular conviction as being sufficiently supported. See Cunningham v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 438 N.E.2d 308. Alternative Mogle requested he receive treatment for alcoholism alternatively to being imprisoned, pursuant to IND.CODE 1......
-
Norton v. State, 4 Div. 728
...computer printouts are not the best evidence of the public records in question or that they violate the hearsay rule. Cunningham v. State, 438 N.E.2d 308 (Ind.App.1982); State v. Loehmer, 159 Ind.App. 156, 304 N.E.2d 835 (1973); Seattle v. Heath, 10 Wash.App. 949, 520 P.2d 1392 (1974); Anno......
-
Oller v. State, 3-184A22
...one's driving record, attested as public records by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, is admissible. Cunningham v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 438 N.E.2d 308; Warner v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 971. However, Cunningham and Warner also hold that such computer printouts ......