State v. CSX Transp., Inc., 17A03-9601-IF-33

• Decision Date: 26 November 1996
• Docket Number: No. 17A03-9601-IF-33,17A03-9601-IF-33
• Citation: 673 N.E.2d 517
• Parties: STATE of Indiana, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellee-Defendant.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 517

673 N.E.2d 517

STATE of Indiana, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellee-Defendant.

No. 17A03-9601-IF-33.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Nov. 26, 1996.

Pamela Carter, Attorney General, Jodi Kathryn Rowe, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Appellant-Plaintiff.

Branch R. Lew, Hunt, Suedhoff, Borror & Eilbacher, Fort Wayne, for Appellee-Defendant.

OPINION

STATON, Judge.

The State of Indiana appeals the acquittal of CSX Transportation, Inc. ("CSX") for blocking a railroad crossing for a period in excess of ten minutes. ¹ The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erroneously interpreted IC 8-6-7.5-1.

We affirm.

The facts most favorable to the trial court's judgment reveal that due to citizen complaints, the Garrett Police Department began issuing citations to railroad companies for blocking railroad crossings within the city limits. CSX received several citations in a three week time period, but only two citations are relevant to this appeal. At approximately 9:45 p.m. on November 19, 1994, Officer Thomas Smurr observed a CSX train cross a railroad crossing on Randolph Street in Garrett. The train blocked the intersection for approximately thirteen minutes. Officer Smurr did not testify concerning whether he observed any cars or pedestrians attempt to cross while the train was present. He issued a citation to CSX for unlawfully blocking the crossing in excess of ten minutes.

On the morning of December 8, 1994, Officer Claude Anderson observed another CSX train block the Randolph Street crossing for twenty minutes. During this time period, Officer Anderson observed one vehicle approach the railroad crossing, turn around and proceed back down Randolph Street. He did not testify concerning any other vehicles waiting at the crossing. Another citation was issued to CSX for obstructing the railroad crossing in excess of ten minutes.

The various citations were consolidated for trial. CSX was found guilty of three infractions not described above. The trial court found that the State had not presented evidence that public travel was obstructed with regard to the two charges described above and acquitted CSX. This appeal ensued.

The State argues that the trial court based its judgments of acquittal on an erroneous interpretation of IC 8-6-7.5-1. A statute should be construed so as to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed in the statute. In so doing, the objects and purposes of the statute in question must be considered as well as the effect and consequences of such interpretation. State v. Windy City Fireworks, Inc., 600 N.E.2d 555, 558 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), adopted on transfer, 608 N.E.2d 699 (Ind.1993). When interpreting the words of a single section of a statute, this court must construe them with due regard for all other sections of the act and with regard for the legislative intent to carry out the spirit and purpose of the act. Detterline v. Bonaventura, 465 N.E.2d 215, 218 (Ind.Ct.App.1984), trans. denied. We presume that the legislature intended its language to be applied in a logical manner consistent with the statute's underlying policy and goals. Id. We presume words appearing in the statute were intended to have meaning, and we endeavor to give those words their plain and ordinary meaning absent a clearly manifested purpose to do otherwise. Indiana Dept. of Human Services v. Firth, 590 N.E.2d 154, 157 (Ind.Ct.App.1992),...