Oller v. State
| Decision Date | 17 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-184A22,3-184A22 |
| Citation | 472 N.E.2d 610 |
| Parties | Rodney OLLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
John M. Kopack, Gilyan, Hanson & Kopack, Merrillville, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., John D. Shuman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
In its Petition for Rehearing, the State, for the first time, raises the argument that IND.CODE Sec. 9-11-4-14(b)(1), effective September 1, 1983, requires this Court to affirm Oller's conviction of Class D felony driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The felony charge was pursuant to IND.CODE Sec. 9-4-1-54(b) 1 which enhances a Class A misdemeanor charge to a Class D felony if there are prior convictions since June 30, 1978. The jury found Oller guilty and at the second stage of the bifurcated trial found him to have prior convictions. This Court reversed the enhancement although a computer printout of Oller's driving record obtained from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles was admitted into evidence. Relying upon the decisions in Cunningham and Warner, 2 this Court held that those computer printouts were ambiguous and only showed arrests. 469 N.E.2d 1227.
IND. CODE Sec. 9-11-4-14(b)(1), provides that a certified copy of a person's driving record obtained from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles is prima facie evidence of previous convictions of operating while intoxicated. However, as was stated in Warner, where identical documents were admitted, "it cannot be ascertained from the face of the printout whether he was previously convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol." 406 N.E.2d at 973. Therefore, as a matter of law, such printouts, admitted into evidence in this cause, cannot be evidence of a conviction notwithstanding IND.CODE Sec. 9-11-4-14(b)(1).
The Petition for Rehearing is denied.
Denied.
1 Now see IND.CODE Sec. 9-11-2-3.
2 This Court has previously held that computer printouts are admissible as they show arrests, but by themselves do not prove prior convictions. Cunningham v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 438 N.E.2d 308; Warenr v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 971.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of Lock
... ... Through the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, the State Bar of Texas commenced compulsory discipline proceedings against Lock pursuant to Part VIII of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. See Tex. R ... ...
-
Jennings v. State
...conviction for driving while intoxicated. Jennings's point is well-taken. In our opinion on petition for rehearing in Oller v. State (1984), Ind.App., 472 N.E.2d 610, we held that BMV records, without more, were ambiguous and could not support the conclusion that the defendant had such a pr......
-
Smith v. State
...foundational requirements prior to admission of poll results); Oller v. State (1984) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 469 N.E.2d 1227, reh. denied 472 N.E.2d 610 (In order for results of breathalyzer test to be admissible, foundational elements must be established); Denton v. State (1979) 2d Dist., 182 In......
-
Lyons v. State
...to every element of the crime charged, the verdict will not be set aside. Oller v. State (1984), Ind.App., 469 N.E.2d 1227, reh. denied, 472 N.E.2d 610. Lyons was charged with attempted escape, pursuant to IND.CODE Sec. 35-44-3-5. The elements of that charge are as 1) Taking substantial ste......